4^f- 


DUKli  UNIVERSITY   LIBRARY 
DURHAM,  N.  C. 


Rcc'd. 


l^^| 


jQ^tt^"^^^^ 


\ 


Form  1)34— 20M— 7-3.^ 


4 


I 


% 

i 


vl 


4 

Mi' 


I 


rH£  DEirr  of  jEsmfT^ 

CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 


TREATISE 


ON   THS 


DIV  I  N  I  TT 


OF    OUR 


LORD  JESUS  CHRIST; 

Written  originally  in  French, 

BY  JA.MES  ABBADIE,  d.  d. 

and  Dean  of  Killa/cc,  in  Ireland, 

A  NEW  EDITION  of  the  ENGLISH  TRANSLATION, 

Revifcdt  Cerre^cd,  andy  in  a  fc~v  places,  AbriagiJ, 

BT  ABRAHAM  B)OrH,  A.  M. 
Paftor  of  the  Baptift  Church,  Goodman's  Fields,  Loncîon. 


Great  is  the  myftcry  of  Godlinefs,  Gox>  was  nianiiefl  in  the 

flefh.     1    Timothy  iii.  16. 
We  arc  in  Hini  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jefus  Chrifl.    This 

is  the  true  God  and  Eternal  Life.     1  John  v.  20. 


tynKsr^sasamy^sxtœtsaamsTn 


BURLINGTON.  N.J. 

Printed  by  S    C    USTICFC  for  THOMAS  USTICK, 
No.  79,   North  Third  Street,   Philadelphia, 

March,   1802. 


Sch.  R. 


Preface  by  the  Editor. 


i  HE  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Eternal  Divinity- 
having  been,  on  different  grounds,  tlie  object  of  long  ai  d 
violent  oppofition  ;  many  learned,  ingenious,  and  able 
pens  have  been  engaged  in  defence  of  that  capital  truih. 
Few,  however,  have  repelled  the  adverfary  with  thcfe 
powers  of  genius,  and  that  force  of  atgunient,  whi^^h 
vere  employed  by  Dr.  Abbadie  in  compofing  t!  is 
admirable  Treatife. —  Far  from  contenting  himfcif  Vsith 
dogmatical  aflertions,  and  equally  far  from  amufing  his 
readers  with  curious  mctaphyfical  fpecu'ations,  on  the 
grand  Subjed  of  his  inquiries  ;  he  has  recourfe  to  the 
tcflimony  of  Gon — to  that  Revelation  which  Jkhovah 
îjjs  made  of  himftlfin  the  Bible,  and  to  ihofe  dcdu^lions 
from  it,  which  are  natural,  clear,  and  conclufive.  Thus 
he  proves  that  Chrill:  is  a  Divine  PhRsON,  and  equal 
with  the  Father;  without  pretending  to  know,  or  attempt- 
ing to  inveftigate,  the  modus  of  his  Divine  Perfonalicy. 
In  regard  to  the  former,  he  lirmly  believes  that  the 
Scripture  is  full,  explicit,  peremptory  ;  in  reference  to 
the  latter,  he  confidersthefacred  Canon  as  entirely  filent  : 
and,  to  difpute  what  Eternal  Veracity  afierts,  bccaufe 
it  is  above  the  power  of  reafon  to  comprehend  ;  or  to 
endeavour  to  difcover  what  God  has  not  revealed  of 
himfeif,  he  looks  upon  as  irrational,  prefumptaous,  and 
highly  criminal. 

The  fentiments  and  views  of  our  Author,  in  t!  is 
refpedl,  are  well  exprefied  by  another  celebrated  write-, 
who  fays  ;  *  I  freely  grant,  that,  had  I  confulted  Wij 

*  own   reafon  only,    I    could  not  have   difcovered  foma 

*  myaeries  of  the  gofpel.      Neveithelefs,  when  1  think 

*  on  the  grandeur  of  God  ;  w  h  jn  I  call  my  eyes  on  dut 

A  2 


275547 


IV  I'llLFACK. 

*  vafl  Ocean;  when  I   confider   tliat  immenfeALL-, 

*  nothing  aftonifhes  me,   nothing  (lumblcs  me,  nothing 

*  Teems    to     me    inadmifiîble,    how     incomprehenfible 

*  foever   it   may  be.      WJien  the   fubjed  is  Divine,   I 

*  am  ready  to  believe  all,   to  admit  all,   to  receive  all;. 

*  provided  I  be  convinced  that  it  is  God  his  felf  who 

*  'peaks  to  me,  or  any  one  on  his  part.    After  this  I  am 

*  no  more  afionilhed  that  there  are  three  dillind  Perfons 
'  in  one  Divine  efience  ;  one  God,  and  )et  a  Father,  a 

*  Son,  and  a  Holy  Gholt. — Either  religion  mwft  tell  us 
'  nothing  about  God,  or  what  it  tells  us  rnuft  be  beyond 
'  our  capacities  ;  and,  in  difcoveiing  even  the  borders 

*  of  this  immenfe  Ocean,  it   muft  needs  exhibit  a  vail 

*  extent  in  which  our  feeble  eyes  are  loft.     But  what 

*  farprizes  me,  what  Humbles  me,  what  frightens  me,  is 
'  to  iee  a  diminutive  creature,  a  contemptible  man,  a 
'  little  ray  of  light   glimmering   through  a  few  feeble 

*  organs,  controvert  a  point  with  the  fupreme  Being  ; 
'  oppofe  that  Intelligence  who  fitteth  at  the  helm  of  the 

*  world  ;  queflion    what    he  affirms,    difpute   what  he 

*  determines,  appeal  from  his  decifions,  and,  even  after 

*  God  hath  given  evidence,   reje<5l:  all  dodrines  that  are 

*  beyond  his  capacity.  Enter  into  thy  nothingnefs,  mortal 

*  creature  !    Vy  hat  madnefs  animates  thee  !    How  durd 

*  thou  pretend — thou  who  art  but  a  point,    thou  whofe 

*  efl'ence  is  but  an  atom — to  meafure  thyfelf  with  the 
'  Supreme  Being  ;  with  him  who  fills  heaven  and  earth  ; 
'  with  Flim,  whom  heaverij  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot 

CQtUa'in!   Canjl  thou  by  fearch'mg  fnd  out  God?   Canji 

*  ihoxi  Jind out  the  Âhiùghty  to ptrfcèl'ion?  High  as  heaven, 
'  '•jjhat  canjî  thou  do  P  deeper  than  hell  y  ivhut  canjî  thou 
'  hiozu*r 

The  great  principle  which  the  Author  aims  to  eftablifh 
in  the  following  work,  is  ;  That  the  Deity  of  Jefus  Chrift 
is  ejfenlial  to  the  Chriftian  Religion.  In  purfuance  of 
this  defign  he  fhews,  if  Jefus  the  Son  of  God  be  not  of 

•  M.  Sauxun'j  5./7.Î.  Yd  I.  p.  78,  79.  Mr.  F-oaiNsoN's 
Tranilation. 


the  fame  effence  w'lch  his  Faiher, — That  the  Mahon^.etan 
rehgion  is  preferable  to  Chridianity,  and  Cliriil  inlcvi(u- 
to  Mahomet  *-That  the  Sanhedrim  did  an  ad  of  juftice, 

*  It  may  be  proper  here  to  obferve,  That  fomf  of  the  Socinians 
have  not  been  afhamcd  to  avow  a  confiderable  degree  of  regard 
lor  the  chara»aer  and  caufe  of  Mahomet.  Witnefs  their  famoiH 
Addrcfs  to  Amktu  Ben  Ameth,  ambaflador  from  the  emperor 
of  Fez  and  Morocco,  to  Charles  the  Second,  King  of  Great 
•Britain.     '  We,  fay  they  to  his  Excellency,  as  your  nearest 

*  FELLOW-CHAMPION'S  for  thofe  truths, — [/.  e.  truths  in  which 

*  none  but  they  agree  with  the  Mahometans]    We,  who,  with 

*  our  Unitarian  brethren,  were  in  all  ages  exercifcd  to  defend 

*  with  our  pens  the  faith  of  one  Supreme  God,  (without  perfon- 

*  alities,  or  pluralities)  As  He  hjib  ralfed  your  Mahom3Î  to  do  ils 
*■  favic  with  the  fwjrd,  as  a  fcourge  on  thofe  idolizing  ChrijV.am  ; 

*  — We  ào.  fir  ii'S  li.idicafioi  of  your  la-iu-mahr's  gl'^ry,   drive  to 

*  prove,  that  fuch  faults  and  irregularities,  [as  are  found  in  the 
'  Koran]  not  cohering  with  the  fadiion  of  the  red  of  the  Alcoran 
«  building,  nor  with  the  undoubted  fayings  of  your  prophet,  nor 

*  with  the  golpel  of  Chrift  (whereof  Mahomet  would  have 
'  himfelf  to  be  but  a  preacher) — were  foiftcd  into  the  fcattercd 
'  papers  found  after  Mahomet's  death,  of  which  in  truth  the 
'  Alcoran  was  made  up  :  it  being  other  wife  impofiible  t!iat  a 
'  man  of  that  judgment,  that  lath  proved  itflf  in  oth^r  tli.igs  fo 
•conspicuously,  Ihould  be  guilty  of  fj  many  and  frequent 

*  repugnancies,  as  are  to  be  feen  in  thofe  writings  and  laws  that 
'  are  now-a-days  given  out  under  his  name.     We  do,  then,  — 

*  endeavour  to  clear  by  whom,  and  in  what  time,  fuch  alterations 
■*  were  made  in  tlie  firfl  fetting  out  of  the  Alcoran.'     See  the 

whole  Addrcfs  in  Leslie's  Socinian  Controvsrfy  Dif,  Pref.  p. 
3 — 13.  Thus  careful  were  thefe  gentlemen  to  purge  the  Koran 
of  every  thing  fuppofititious  ;  and  thus  tender  of  its  Author's 
honour  ! 

Another  Socinian  writer  reprefents  Mahomet,  as  having  <  no 
'  othur  defign  but  to  reflore  the  belief  of  the  unity  of  God  ;  which, 

*  fays  he,  at  that  time  was  extirpated  among  the  eaRern  Cariil- 

*  ians,  by  the  doilrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.' — And 
informs  us,  *  That  Mahomet  meant  not  his  religion  fhould  be 
'•cfteemed  a  nctv  religion;  but  only  the  reftitution  of  the  true 

*  intent  of  the  Chriftian  religion — That  the  P.lahometan  learned 

*  men  call  themfelves.  the  true  dfciples  of  the  Mellias,  or  CJirifl  ; 

*  intimating  thereby,  that  Chriftians  are  apoftates  fiom  the 
'MOST    ESSENTIAL   PARTS  of  the  doilrinc  of  the  MeiTias 

'*  That  Mahometanirni  has  prevailed  fo  greatly,  net  by  force  a:id 

9  7  H  f;  zS  -7 


VI  F  REFACE. 

in  caufing  Jefus  to  be  put  to  death  for  blafphemy — That 
He  and  his  apodles  have  led  us  into  a  complicated  and 
})ernicious  error — That  there  is  no  agreement  between 
the  Old  and  the  New  Tedament — And,  that  neither 
the  ancient  Jewifh,  nor  the  Chriflian  Religion,  is  attend- 
ed with  fufficient  criteria  to  diilinguifii  it  from  impolbre. 
— In  proving  that  thefe  are  the  neceflaiy  confequences 
of  the  Socinian  and  Arian  fydems,  and  in  anfwering  the 
principal  objections  of  his  opponents  ;  he  difcovers  fuch 
fwrtility  of  invention,  originality  of  thought,  and  flrength 
of  reafoning  powers,  as  comparatively  few  enjoy.  The 
generality  of  writers  on  this  very  intesefting  fubjed-,  do 
little  more  than  co!le<51:  and  retail  the  thoughts  of  others, 
which  they  exprefs  in  a  diffcrciit  flyle  and  m.ethod. 
Not  fo  Dr.  Abb  ABIE.  For  the  reader  of  this  maihrly 
performance,  if  not  pofTeffed  of  uncom.mon  penetration, 
is  entertained  with  ideas  entirely  new,  as  well  as  with 
arguments  irrefragably  Ihong,  in  every  Sedion,  and  in 
almoft  every  Chapter  :  fo  that,  if  he  love  the  adorable 
Jesus  and  "  rejoice  in  his  Highnefs,"  he  finds  himfelf 
inftruded,  amazed,  delighted. 

Though  the  bock  be  exceedingly  fcarce,  and,  at  tKis 
time,  very  little  known  in  England  ;  the  abilities  of  the 
Writer  and  the  merit  of  the  Treatife  have  received  the 
mod:  honourable  tefllmonies  from  various  pens.  Abbé 
HouTEViLLE,  for  indancc,  when  fpeaking  of  our 
Author's  work,  on  the  truth  of  the  Chr'ijlian  Religion  ;  of 
which  elaborate  performance  this  is  generally  reckoned 
the  third  volume,  fays  ;  *  The  mofl  fliining  of  thofe 
'  treatifes  in  defence  of  the  Chriflian  Religion,  which 

*  were  publifhed  by  the  Proteflants,  is  that  Vv'ritten  by 

*  Mr.  Abbadie.  The  favourable  reception  it  met  with  ; 

*  the  fword, — but  by  that  one  truth,  in  the  Alcoran,  the  mùty 

*  of  God;'  that  is,  as  well  in  Per/on,  as  in  EJfence.  And  then 
he  reprefents  the  Tartars  as  ading  more  rationally,  in  embracing 
what  he  calls,  '  the  jmre  plaufibU  fcdt  of  Mahomet,  than  they 

*  would  have  done,  in  receiving  the  Chriftian  faith  of  the  Trinity, 

*  Iflcaniation;  &c,'    in  Leslie,  as  above,  p,  2§» 


PREFACE.  VII 

*  thè  praifes  it  received,  almod  without  example,  immc- 

*  diately  afier  its  publication  ;  and  the  univerfal  approba- 

*  tion  it  (Ull  meets   with,  vender  it  unneceiFary  for  me 

*  to  join  my  commendations,  which  would  add  fo  Httle 
'  to  the  merit  of  fo  great  an  author.      In  the  firfl:  part  he 

*  combats  the  Athei(h.  the  Deifts  in  the  fécond,  and  thu 

*  Socinians  in  the  third  *.' — Voltaire  alfo,  who 
cannot  be  fufpeded  of  a  predile«5t:ion  for  Abbadie,  on 
account  of  his  writing  in  defence  of  revealed  truth  ; 
informs  us,  that  '  he  was  celebrated  for  his  Treatife  on 

*  the  Chriflian  Religion  f .' — And  the  Rev.  Mr.  Venn 
thus  recommends  the  work  ;  *  It  is  a  book  in  the  highed 

*  form  for  reputation,  in    all  the  Protedant  countries 

*  abroad  ^  a  book,  in  which  the  horrid  abfurdities  of  all, 

*  who,  under  pretence  of  being  more  rational  in  religion, 

*  reject  the  counfel  of  God,  are  expofed  in  a  moll 
'  mallerly  manner  :|:.' — Such  is  the  character  of  the 
Author,  among  thole  who  know  his  abilities  ;  and  fuch 
the  elteem  which  this  performance  of  liis  has  obtained. 

The  Ifyle  of  the  EngU;]i  tranflation,  which,  on  account 
of  its  many  inaccuracies,  reprefented  the  work  to  great 
difadvantage,  the  Editor  has  attempted  to  corred  ;  and, 
where  it  did  not  affevSl  the  argument,  he  has  abridged  the 
book,  th:it  the  lize  and  price  of  it  might  be  reduced. 
He  has  alfo  taken  the  liberty,  in  fome  places,  of  throwing 
in  an  additional  thought  ;  with  a  view,  either  to  elucidate 
the  Auihor's  meaning,  or  to  enforce  his  argument. — 
How  far  his  endeavours  to  render  the  book  more 
generally  known,  and  the  tranflation  of  it  more  agreeable, 
may  oi)tain  the  approbation  of  the  religious  public,  he 
cannot  pretend  to  fay.  He  is  not,  however,  without  a 
pleafing  perfuafion,  that  many  will  read  the  work  with 
delight  and  profit — that  many,   who  "  love  our  Lord 


*   Article  Abbadie,  Nciu  and  Gen.  Biograph .  Dici.  Note. 
t    Age  of  Lewis  XIV.  Vol.  II.  p.  274. 

\  Exam,  of  Dr,  Frhjîlefs  Addrcfs  on  the  LorSi  Supper,  p.  IS, 
23.  Note. 


Vïll  PREFACE-* 

**  Jesus  Christ  in  fincerity,"  will  rejoice  to  fee  hie 
■Divine  Dignity  fo  well  defended,  againtl  the  infinuating 
artifices  of  pernicious  error,  and  the  bold  attacks  of  open 
blafphemy.  And  it  is  his  ardent  prayer  that  God  our. 
Saviour,  to  whom  the  Author  dedicates  the  work  *, 
would  condefcend  to  ufe  it  as  a  mean  of  his  own  glory, 
•and  of  the  church's  good.     To  Him,  therefore,  "  who 

"    IS    OVER     ALL,     GOD     BLESSED    FOR     EVER,"    it  is 

once  more  commended. 

*  See  the  paragraph  which  concludes  the  Tvcrk, 

Goodman's  Fields, 
January  i,  1777, 


CON  TENTS, 


h 


NTRODUCTION, 


SECTION-    L 

If  Jesl^s  Christ  be  not  the  true  God, 
of  the  fiirae  eiTence  with  his  Father, 
the  Mahometan  religion  is  preferable 
to  the  Chriflian  religion,  and  Jesus 
Christ  inferior  to  Mahomet. 

Cjiap.  I.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  effence 
with  his  Father,  the  Chriftianity  we  profefs  is  a 
corruption  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  and  Mahomet- 
anifm  the  re-eflabUlhtnent  of  it.  -  -  , 

Chap.  II.  If  Jesus  Chris  r  be  not  of  the  fame  effence 
with  his  Father,  Mahomet  was  a  teacher  raifed  up 
of  God  to  inftruél  mankind-  -  -  -  - 

CuAP.  III.  if  Jlsus  Chris  r  be  not  of  the  fame  cflencc 
with  his  Father,  Mahomet  was  a  great  prophet,  the 
gveatefl  of  prophets    and  preferable  to  Jesus  Christ. 

Chap.  IV.  M  Jlsus  Chrisp  be  not  of  the  fame 
cff^nce  with  his  Father,  Mahomet  was  more  true, 
more  wife,  more  concerned  for  the  good  of  mankind, 
and  more  zealous  for  the  glory  of   God,  thi'.r.  he. 

SECTION  IL 
If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the  true  God, 
of  the  fame  eiTence  with  his  Father, 
the  Sanhedrim  did  an  a6l  of  Juftice 
in  caufmg  him  to  be  put  to  death  ; 
and  the  Jews  had  fufficient  reafon  to 
reje6l  the  preaching  of  his  apoilles, 
when  they  called  them  to  believe  on 
him.  -  -  .  . 


Page 

^5 


i^ 


17 


29 


41 


CDI/T£NTS. 

Paire 

Chap.  I.  Je80s  Christ  Is  called  Go».  -         -      -         4I 

Cmap.  II.  The  argument  continued.  *  "         "         53 

Chap.  HI    The  principal  lities  and  Chara(fters  which, 
in  the  writings  of  the  Prophets,  form  the  idea  of  the 
true  God     arc  applied  to  Jesds  Chkis  i\         '  '         59 

Chap.  IV.    Jesu»  Cuais.   declared  to  be  Equal  with 

God  -  -  -  -  -  -         71 

Cmap.  V.  Jesus  CnRifr  received  Religious  Worlhip.         76 
Chap.  VI     The  charrélers  of  Jehovah's  glory  in  the 
ancient  Oracles,  applied  to  Jtsus  Ciik)s     ;    and  the 
argument  ariling  from  that  application  illuftriti-d.  85 

SECT/ON    HI, 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the  true  God, 
of  the  fame  efTence  with  his  Father, 
He  and  his  apoftles  have  led  us  into  a 
complicated  and  pernicious  error.     -     90 

Chap.  1-  The  principles  which  we  oppofe,  obfcurc, 
depreciate,  deftroy,  thofe  exalted  ideas  which  Jesus 
gives  us  of  his  Father's  Love  and  of  his  own  Compaf- 
fion  to  finful  men.  -  -  -  -  $0 

Chap.  II.  The  doitrine  of  our  adverfarics  deflroys  the 
idea  which  the  Scriptures  give  us,  of  the  Greatncfs 
of  Gofpel  royfteries,  and  the  Nature  of  true  Faith.    -        ii^ 

Chap,  ill.  The  hypothefis  of  our  adverfarics  deprives 
Jesus  Christ  of  his  higheft  honour;  by  makirg 
him  pofiefs  thofe  Titles  in  a  metaphorical  fenfe,  which 
the  Scripture  F.pplies  to  him  in  one  that  is  proper. 
This  proved  by  two  inftances.  -  -  "        XI 

Chap.  IV.  According  to  the  fentiments  of  our  adver- 
farics, the  Death  (A  Christ  has  no  real  Ufefulnefs 
in  it.  -  -  -  -  -       125 

Chap.  V.  The  fentlments'of  our  adverfarics  render  the 
language  of  Scripture  obfcurc  and  falfe,  abfurd  and 
impious.  -  -  -  -  -125 

Chap.  VI.  Evidences  of  the  fame  truth,  arjfmg  from 
thofe  palTagcs  of  Scripture,  which  exprefs  the  Fre- 
exiftence  of  Jesus  Christ,  -  -  -       141 

Chap.  VII.  The  fame  Truth  evinced,    from   Phil.  ii. 

5—8.  .-..-.        147 

Chap.  VTH.  The  fame  tiuth  confirmed  and  illuftrated, 
from  John  i.  i — 14.  The  Sociniun  interpretation  of 
this  paflage  confidered  and  expcfcd.         -        -         -       153 


Pag« 

Chap.  ïX.  TIîî  fame  Argument  continued.         -         -        i6i 

Chap.  X.  The  Arian  hypothefis  cquitlly  indcfenfible.  j^i 

Cu.vr.  XI.     I'he    Language  of  the  Holy  Spirit,   on  the 

Sociniau    hypothcTis.    is    obfcure,    abiurd,     and    uot 

coniiilciit  with  piety.  -  t  -  -       i;^ 

SECTION-    IV, 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  oF  the  fame 
cffence  with  his  Father,  there  is  no 
harmony  between  the  prophets  and 
the  apoflles,  or  between  the  Old 
Teftament  and  the  New.         -         -   188 

CuA",  T.  If  Jf.su S  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  cfTence 
with  his  Father,  the  Prophets,  who  fpake  of  him, 
did  not  forefee  things  as  they  were  to  come  to  pafs.         i8B 

Chai>.  H.  If  Jesus  Curis  be  not  of  the  fame  cffence 
with  his  Father.,  either  the  \poftles  did  not  under- 
ftand  the  Prophets,  or  they  dcûgned  to  betray  us  into 
error.  -..---       195 

Chap.  HI.  The  apoftlos  did  not  apply  the  ancient 
oracles  to  Jesus  Christ,  by  mere  Allufion,  or 
Accomodation.  -  •  -  «         .       jio 

SECTION     V. 

If  J2SUS  Christ  be  not  the  true  God, 
neither  the  ancient  Jewilh,  nor  the 
Chriftian  Religion,  is  attended  with 
fafHcient  Criteria  to  diilinguifh  it 
from  liUpoHure.  -  -  -  216 

Cttap,  I.   The  propoution    proved,    in  rcfpetSt  of  the 

Jewifti  Religion.  -  -  -  -        2l6 

CfiAP.  II.     The  p'opofition  proved,   in  refpeâ  of  the 

Chridiau  lelig;i(»n  -  -  -        22  6 

CfiAT.  lil.  If  J  .sus  CnRisi  be  not  the  true  God,  the 
Chiiftian  Reli3;!on  has  no!:  fufficient  criteria,  by  which 
10  diftinguilU  it  from  Idolatry  auJ  Impotturc-  -       "^2.') 


Page 


CONTENTS, 
SECTION     VL 

The  principal  obje6Hons  anfwered  ;  and 
fome  Confiderations,  adapted  to 
relieve  the  mind  refpe61:ing  the  Diffi- 
culties which  attend  this  Great  Myf- 
tery.  •  -  -  .  239 

Chap.  I.  Divine  Revelation,  not  depraved  Rcafon,  to 

be  our  Guide  in  all  inquiries  of  this  nature.         -  -        239 

Ckap,  11.  An   objcdion  from  the  fuppofed  Silence  cf 

the  Scripture,  anfwered.  -  _         _         -       2^6 

Chap.  111.  An  Objedion  from  John  xvii.  3    anfwered.       256 
Chap    IV.    An  Objeélion  from  i  Cor.  viii.  4»   5,  6. 

anfwered.  -  -  -  -       277 

Chap.  V.  An  Objeâion  from  Luke  i.  ^S'  anfwered.     -       2S7 

Chap.  VI.  Other  Objeéïions  anfwered.  -  -       298 

Chap.  VI 1.   borne  Confiderations  adapted  to  relieve  the 

mind  refpedling    the  DiiEculties  which    attend  this 

Great  Myfiery.  -  -  -  -       3©3 


■I  .iwi  mMitmmm  ■»  'uu  WiJiiuuw^ jiHi.UfcMUMJULi  MR,.  ^  L)i.inuii.i»mj»-ifjiJLLL»iiriB  ■ 

THE 

DEITY  of  JESUS  CHRIST 

Essential  to  the 

CHRISTIAN  RELIGION. 


INTRODUCTION. 


T 


KE  ca}»ltal  truths  cf  religion  are  Co  clofe'y 
conne£led,  that,  like  the  principles  of  geometr)',  Çow.ç 
of  them  ferve,  as  fo  many  flcps,  by  which  to  dcfccnd 
to  the  knowledge  of  others. 

In  our  examination  of  the  principal  evidences  on 
which  our  faith  is  c(|-ab]ifhed,  we  were  led  by  tiie  truth 
of  the  exigence  of  God,  to  that  of  natural  religion  ;  by 
the  truth  of  natural  religion,  to  that  of  the  Jewiili 
religion  ;  and  by  the  truth  of  the  Jewifh  religion,  to  that 
of  the  ChrifUan  religion'"^. 

The  mutual  relation  which  thefe  grand  truths  hare 
one  to  another,  has  led  us  a  flcp  further.  We  could 
not  carefully  examine  the  foundations  of  the  Chridian 
religion,  witlioul  being  convinced, tliat  the  fame  principles 
edablini  the  Divinity  of  Jefus  Chrifl — E(îablifh  it  in 
fuch  a  manner,  that  he  who  doubts,  whether  the  Lord 

»  Rffcrrlng  to  the  Author's  Trcaufu  C«  l/je  T.idhcf  the 
Chy'Jllin  Rti'igion, 


14  ix-rrjjLucricx, 

Meillah  be  truly  and  properly  God,  ou^bt  a'fo  to  qucfllcui 
th«  truih  of  the  Scriptures,  \>hich  contain  tbe  Chrifiiim 
doctrine;  and,  thut  whoever  is  afTurcd  ilie  N«.\v  Tefla- 
ir.ent is  divinely  autbciitic,  ought  not  to  difpute  theDcity 
ofChrifl.     This  is  the  general  defîgn  of  the   enfuing 


Bat,  for  the  better  under  (landing  it,  one  dïdindîon 
is  highly  necefTary.  The  Divinity  of  Jefus  Chrift  may- 
be confidercd,  either  as  a  m)  i\cry  conc^a/cd  from  us; 
or  as  a  truth  revealed  to  us.  That  our  Lord  is  really  a 
I3ivine  Perfon,  is  a  truth  revealed;  bat  the  modus  of 
liis  Divine  Subfiflence,  is  an  unfsarchable  niyftery  ;  and, 
fo  far  from  attempting  to  explai-n  it,  v%e  ought  rather 
10  fhew,  that  it  is  inexplicable.  Ail  the  difference 
betv/ecn  the  pcopî'e  and  their  teachers,  in  this  refpcft,  \z. 
The  ignorance  of  the  people  is  modcfl  and  hanible  ; 
they  are  not  afliamed  to  own  it.  Bjt  that  of  their 
teachers  is  haughty,  and  has  recourfe  to  fcholaftie 
diftinitions,  in  order  to  conceal  itfelf  We  do  not, 
therefore,  undertake  to  explain  the  myftery,  but  lo prove 
the  fact.  We  fr.ali  liave  no  rtcouîfe  to  matephyfical 
fpecuiations,  to  fiiew  how  the  thing  is;  but  we  fhall 
inaheit  appear,  fiom  divins  Pwcvtlation^that  it  really  is.  ^ 

As  my  general  dengn  is  to  prove,  that  there  is  a 
ncccflary  conneiftion  between  the  Divinity  of  Chriil,  and 
the  truth  of  the  Chriitian  religion,  I  fiudi  make  it  my 
principal  erdeavour  to  fiiew,  that  they  niuft  (land,  or 
fall,  together.  For  this  pu'-pofe,  1  fliall  adopt  2:  method 
which  may  feem  a  little  i;cv.'  and  extraordinary  ;  but 
fj.ch  as  may,  perhaps,  be  convincing.  If  Jefus  Chrifl 
be  not  the  true  God,  cf  the  fame  tiTence  with  his  Father, 
I  fiiall  {liew,That  the  Mahometan  religion  is  preferable 
to  Chriltianity,  and  Chrift  inferior  to  Mahomet — That 
the  Sanhedrim  did  an  ad  of  juftice  in  caufing  Jefus  to 
be  ])ut  to  death  fcrr  blafphemy — That  He  and  his  apoilies 
have  led  us  into  a  complicated  and  pernicious  error — 


That  tliero  is  no  harmony  between  the  0U\  and  the  New 
Tefto.ment — And,  that  ncirher  the  ancient  Jewilh,  nor 
ihe  Chriilian  religion,  is  attended  with  fufficicMn  criîcri;! 
to  didinguiih  it  from  impofliirc.  Which  particulars  I 
Ihall  diitin<fHy  confider,  in  five  Seâions  :  to  which  Î 
Ihall  add  a  lixth,  dcl^gncd  to  anfwer  the  principal 
©bjedions  againd  the  orthodox  faith. 

As  the  Divinity  of  Chrisî,  the  ÎNC.\RN.\TroN', 
and  the  Trinity,  are  three  fubjefts  which  may  be 
didindly  handled  ;  it  -is  proper  to  apprife  the  reader, 
that  it  is  the  firji  only  which  1  intend  here  to  eiiabH.h-; 
it  being,  in  fome  refpeds,  fundamental  to  the  other 
two. 

The  brevity  at  which  T  aim  not  permitting  me  to  ra-^k 
the  adverfaries  of  the  orthodox  doc^lrine  in  diflerer.t 
clrtfics,  and  to  engage  the  Arians,  Semi-ariars,  and 
Sociniansj  feparately;  I  have  fo  managed  the  argn.rnent, 
that  they  are  generally  oppofcd  by  the  fane  proofs. 

I  diAinguidi,  once  for  all,  and  rcquefl  the  reader 
carefully  to  remember  it,  bet'.veen  the  pcrfons  of  or,r 
adverfaries,  and  the  canfe  which  they  plead.  Towards 
the  former  I  have  all  the  fentiments  of  love  and  con- 
paflion,  which  are  due  to  my  erring  fellow  mcrta'r. 
1  admit e  the  parts,  the  learning,  and  the  gifts,  whicli 
God  has  beftowed  on  fome  of  them.  And  t'lough 
.they  do  m.anifeft  violence  to  the  Scripture,  I  \<q>'?v\  xxx 
accufe  tn.em  of  fijcaking  contrary  to  their  c.-.vn  l;gh'.  ; 
nor  judge  them  ua worthy  of  toleration  in  a  Proteaar.t 
f^ate. — As  to  their  canfe,  I  ought  not  to  be  cenfurcd, 
if  I  endeavour  to  reprefent  it  in  its  own  colours — in  ail 
that  deforiTiity  which  necelTailly  attends  an  hypothefls, 
that  is  contrary  to  Divine  Revelation  and  the  fjjirit  of 
true  religion.  This  is  my  duty,  and  one  end  of  my 
miniflry.  I  ought  not  to  omit  any  thing,  which  appears 
to  be  a  lawRd  and  propable  mean  of  convincing  tbi^rp 
B  2 


1 0  /  j\-  r jz  CD  uc  ri  c  x, 

that  oppofe  the  truth,  and  of  reclaiming  thofc  who  have 
wandered  froni  the  path  of  duty.  But  it  is  far  from 
being  my  defign  to  ufe  hyperboHcal  exprcfiions  and 
declamatory  language,  in  order  to  give  an  hideous 
defcription  of  a  difguifcd  dodrine.  My  intention  is,  to 
r.dduce  fuch  arguments  from  the  Scripture  as  are 
pertinent  and  conclufive,  and  to  propofe  ihem  in  a  plain 
manner  ;  having  recourfe  to  the  Divine  tedimony  and 
lirht  reafon,  for  the  eflablifhment  of  truth  and  the 
confutation  of  error. — May  the  wondkrful  Counsel- 
i,OPv  enlighten  the  mind  and  guide  the  pen  of  the  writer! 
that  this  work  may  redound  to  the  glory  of  God  my 
Saviour  and  prove  a  bkfîlng  to  all  its  readers.  Ameiî. 


^7 


SECTION    I. 


If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the  true  God,  of 
•the  fame  cflencc  with  his  Father,  the 
Mahometan  rehgion  is  preferable  to  the 
Chridian  religion,  and  Jesus  Christ 
inferior  to  Mahomet. 


CHAPTER    I. 

It"  Jesus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  eilerce  with  his  Father, 
the  Chriftiar.ity  wc  profcfs  is  r.  corruption  of  the  Chrifliaji 
.religion,  arid  Mahometanifni  the  re-eftabliiîiment  ef  it. 


TlL"^ 


AT  there  is  an  -infinite  diflance  between 
rtlie  Creator  and  the  creature,  is  a  principle  of  natural 
'Religion.  God  cannot,  therefore,  without  the  moft 
.hateful  impiety,  be  treated  as  a  creature  ;  nor  can  a 
.-creature,  without  damnable  idolatry,  be  treated  as  a 
.God.  If,  then,  Jefus  Chrift  be  the  Creator,  he  cannot 
be  faid,  xviihoat  impiety,  to  be  a  mers  creature  :  and, 
if  he  be  a  mere  creature,  he  cannot,  without  idolatry, 
be  acknowledged  as  God.  Ccnfeqa^nlly,  if  we  v. ho 
confider  him,  as  of  one  efiencc  with  the  Father,  ami 
the  eternal  God,  be  i.:id<;r  a  miflake,  we  cannot  be 
icicared  from  a  charge  of  idolatry,  fince. it  is  .as  fuch  that 
we  wonliip  him. 

We  could  not  juftify  our  conduvfl,  by  faying;  *  we 
-'  fincerely  believe  him  to  be  God  ;  fo  that  though 
•  there  is  an  error  in  our  judgment,  yet  there  is  no 
•\inficicliry  in  our  hearts,  our  worfhip  being  .direded  to 


Sl-CT.  I.  iS  CHAP.  1. 

*  God  only.'  For  the  fame  reafon  might  ferve  to 
excule  all  idolaters  pafh,  prefent,  and  future.  The 
Heathens,  who  worfliippcd  their  Jupiter,  really  believed 
him  to  be  God,  and  their  ads  of  worfliip  were  intention- 
ally referred  to  the  Supreme  Being  ;  yet  they  were  not 
the  lefs  idolatrous  on  that  account. 

Nor  ought  we  to  imagine  that  a  creature,  on  account 
of  its  fuperior  excellence,  may  become  the  obje^fl  of 
worfliip,  which  it  would  not  be  la'.vful  to  give  to  one  of 
an  inferior  order.  For  they  who  worfliip  the  (hrs,  are 
as  really  idolaters,  asthcfe  that  worfiiip  wood  and  (tone; 
iind  they  who  worfl:iip  angels,  as  thofe  that  worfliip  the 
■ilats  :  bccaufe  idolatry  does  not  conf:!!:,  in  rendering 
divine  honouis  to  a  creature  that  is  comparc.t'ively  low  in 
the  fcale  of  dependant  exifbnce  ;  but  in  addreffing  them 
to  a  mere  creature» 

Here  it  will  be  faid,   *  It  may  be  lawful  to  worfiiip 

*  a  creature,   whom  God  is  pleafed  to  inveft  with  his 

*  glory  ;  as  it  is  lawful  to  pay  extraordinary  honours  to 

*  a  fubje6:,  to  whom  the  king  orders   they  fliould  be 

*  paid.' — -But  then  it  mull  be  granted,  that  it  is  never 
lawful  to  worfliip  a  creature,  as  the  true  God  ;  any  more 
than  it  is  to  honour  a  fubjeft,  by  treating  him  as  the  real 
fovereign.  I  may  venture  to  aflcrt,  that  -God  neither 
would,  nor  could  part  with  this  character  of  his  glory, 
in  favour  of  anoditr.  He  could  not  ;  For  it  is  impoflible 
that  he  only  fliould  be  the  true  God,  and  that  another, 
who  has  not  his  efTence,  fliould  be  fo  too.  He  nvould 
not:  For  how  could  he  will  a  thing,  which,  being 
<:ontrary  to  the  truth,  is  contrary  to  his  nature  ? — Sup- 
pofe,  then,  that  Chrifl  is  God's  reprefentative,  and  that 
it  is  as  fuch  he  is  an  objed  of  worfliip  ;  yet,  not  being 
•Cod,  he  cannot,  without  manifeil  idolatry,  be  worfliipped 
as  God. 

Again  :  Idolatry  is  a  crime  which  violates  the  law 
QÎ  God  and  deflroys  the  fpirit  of  piety  :  it  is  dire(5tly 
oppofite  to  the  two  great  ends  of  religion  ;  which  are, 

^ie  glory  of  God,  and  the  Xalvftticn  çf  our  fcHils*    A-s 


■jECT.  I*  19  .CHAP.    U 

to  the  former^  it  evidently  robs  Jehovah  of  his  glory, 
and  invefts  a  creature  with  it.  As  to  the  latter^  the 
■Tpirit  of  infallibility  has  declared,  that  *'  idolaters  fhall 
-**  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Hence  it  follows,  that  the  Chriftianity  we  profefs,  is 
a  corruption  of  the  ChrifUan  religion  ;  and  ihat  Maho- 
metanifm  is  the  re  eflablifliment  of  it.  For  if  Chridianity 
•in  its  primitive  purity,  reprefent  and  treat  Jefus  Chriit 
.as  a  mere  creature  ;  we  corrupt  and  fubvert  it,  A^hen  we 
confiderand  worfhip  him,  as  the  true  God.  If,  then 
the  religion  of  thofe  who  worfhip  him  as  the  Supreme 
Being,  be  a  corruption  of  Chriflianity  ;  the  Mahometan 
religion,  which  reprefents  God  as  infinitely  fuperior  to 
Jcfus  Chriff,  muil  be,  in  this  refpcfl,  the  re-eflabli(hment 
of  it. 

We  have  been  told,   indeed,  by  Epifcopius,  *  That 

*  the  Chridian  religion  is  not  a  fciencc  of  bare  contem- 
•*  plation,  but  a  pradical  knowledge  ;  and,  that  it  confifîs 

*  in  obedience,  rather  than  in  any  abftraded  fpeculations 
"*  on  the  Deity.'  I  grant  the  principle,  but  deny  that  it 

is  pertinently  applied  in  the  cafe  before  us.  What,  are 
thofe  fentimcnts  mers  J  peculations^  which  are  of  fach 
importance,  that  v/e  are  guilty  of  idolatry,  if  they  be 
ialle,  and  our  adverfarics  of  blafphemy,  if  they  be  true  ! 

If  our  Lord  be  of  the  fame  effence  with  his  Father^ 
■sr,  in  other  words,  if  he  be  God  by  nature  ;  he  ouoht 
to  be  adored  as  fuch  :  and  our  opponents  cannot,  without 
the  greateft  impiety,  refufe  to  acknowledge  and  wor/hip 
him  under  that  moft  exalted  charaéler.  Eut  if  he  be 
not  of  one  efTence  with  the  Father,  we  cannot  confider 
and  addrefs  him  as  the  true  Qoà^  without  being  guilty 
of  idolatry.  So  that  the  great  queflion  here  is,  How 
may  we  avoid  impiety,  on  the  one  hand;  and  idolatry 
on  the  other  ?  confequently,  it  is  pradical  and  of  the 
highefl:  importance. 

The  learned  Arminian  jufl  mentioned,  labours  muchj 
therefore,  to  little  purpofe,  when  he  endeavours  to  prove, 
'\  That  it  is  not  eireiuiai  to  faJvation  tQ  knov/,  whether 


«EC T.  f.  liO  CHAP.  I. 

•«  [fefus  Chrlft  be  a  divine  perfon,  by  eternal  generation; 

*  or  whether,  being  a  mere  cre.uure,  he  be  called  God, 
••on  account  of  his  niinilhy.*  For,  to  prove  ihat  the 
knowledge  of  thefe  things  is  not  efTentiah  he  mufl:  not 

'Only  Ihew,  that  the  Sccinians  may,  without  being 
idolaters,  worlliip  one  '>vhGm  they  believe  to  be  a  mere 
man,  by  nature  ;  but  alio,  that  we,  without  the  guilt  of 
idolatry,  may  adore  Jefus  Chii(t  as  God,  though  he  be 
not  fo  in  reality.  If  our  belief  of  the  erernal  generation 
and  confublbniiality  of  the  Son  of  God,  betray  us  into 
idolatry  ;  nothing  can  be  more  fundamental,  or  more 
necefiiiry,  than  a  knowledge  of  thofe  queftions  w-hich 
Tcfpeél  his  generation  and  confubHantiality.  But  it  is 
certain,  that  our  dodiine,  upon  this  rubj€6^,  does  lead  us 
into  idolatry,  if  we  be  in  an  error,  as  to  the  doflrine 
•itfelf.  Por  if  Chtifc  be  not  of  the  fame  efier.ce  with  his 
Father,  he  is  not  God  :  and  if  fo,  we  cannot  place  him 
en  the  throne  of  God,  by  paying. divine  honouis  to  hini 
without  manifeft  idolatry. 

Nor  have  we  any  excufe,  by  which  to  extenuate  ihe 
impiety  of  cur  conducT:.  For,  were  we  to  fay,  '  That 
■*  we  worfhip  him  as  the  Supreme  Being,  bscauft  we 

*  verily  believe  him  to  be  fo.;'  the  Heathens,  as  before 
obferved,  might,  on  the  fame  principle,  juttify  the 
worship  which  they  addrefled  to  Jupiter. ^ — Were  we  to 
]jlead,  *  We  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  worfhlpping  him 

*  as  God,  becaufe,  though  he  be  not  fo,  he  deferves 
<  our  adoration  ;'  we  fhould  only  change  the  ftatc  of 
the  queftion.  For  the  quefHcn  here,  is  not,  whether 
he  deferves  adcration  :  but,  whether  we  may  adore  him 
AS  God,  though  he  be  not  God. — Were  we  to  aflert, 

*  That  nothing  is  abfolutely  necelTary  to  be  believed, 
-'  performed,  or  avoided,  in  order  to  our  falvation,  but 

*  what  is  mod  evidently  commanded,  or  prohibited  in 
«  the  Scripture;*  it  would  only  ferve  to  condemn  us. 
For  what  is  more  exprefsly  contained  in  the  Bible, 
than    thofe    precepts   which   require,    that  v/e    fhould 

-jifcrihe.the  ^lory  of  God  to  none  but  God.^  Qr,  vù'M 


«ECT-  î.  21  CHAP.  î* 

is  prohibited  on  more  clreadrul  pains  than  idolatry, 
v/hich  puts  the  creature  in  the  place  of  God  ? — Were 
we  to  imagine,  *  That  God  would  not  condemn  our 

*  worihip,  becaufe  he  aiT-inics  to  himfelf  all  the  honours 

♦  that  are  paid  to  his  Son  ;'  a  little  relleflion  would 
convince  us  of  a  great  miftake.  For  if  Chrilt  be  a  mere 
creature,  he  cannot  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  but  in 
nn,  improper  and  very  remote  fenfe.  Confcquently, 
however  highly  exalted  he  may  be  above  other  creatures, 
yet  the  difproportion  between  him  and  God  is  greater, 
immenfcly  greater,  than  that  which  fubfills  between 
Gabriel  and  a  worm.  If,  tlien,  a  very  excellent 
creature  would  take  it  defervcdly  ill,  to  have  the 
honours  which  are  due  to  himfelf  transferred  to  one 
t'lat  is  mean  and  vile  ;  with  much  greater  reafon  will 
God  be  oifcnded,  that  the  worfhip  which  is  due  to 
himfelf  only,  is  addreiTed  to  Jefus  Chrilt. 

But  it  is  faid,  *' Jesus  Christ  reprefcnts  God.* 
True  :  It  is,  however,  certain,  that  to  reprefent  God, 
is  one  thing  ;  to  be  God,  is  another. — '  But  he  is  the 
Son  of  God.*  Granted;  Notwithftanding,  on  the 
Socinian  principles,  he  bears  that  character  only  in  a 
figurative  fenfe;  confequently,  there  is  a  greater  dillance 
.between  him  and  God,  than  there  is  between  tiie 
meaned  infe(51:  and  the  moll:  glorious  "angel.  "So  that 
though  it  were  proper  to  invert  the  vileft  creature,  with 
the  titles  and  glories  of  the  mod  exahed  ;  it  would  not 
'  be  lawful  to  pay  to  Jefus  Chrift  thof;;  honours  v.hich  are 
.due  to  none  but  God. 


€ECT.  I,  tZ  'C«Ar.   ÏÏ, 


CHA?rER     IL 


Jf  Jesus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  ciîtr«:e  \vlih  lus  Father 
Mahomet,  was  a, teacher  xAlt^  up  of  Gcd  to  infirud  md««. 
kmd. 


1 


T  appe.irs,  then,  th^t  tlie  Mahometan  religion 
IS,  in  fome  refpeâs,  the  re-eirabliflm-ient  of  ChviHianity, 
if  ChrilT:  be  not  the  true  God.  But  I  fua!!  here  be 
told,   *  That  the  religion   cf  the  Arabian  prophet,    is 

•  replete  with  fiction  and  impoflare.'  Granted  :  Yet  I 
beg  leave  to  inquire,  How  it  came  to  pafs  that  truth 
?.nd  error  made  i:^  Pcri»fl:  an  alliance  in  ii  ?  That 
Mahomet  was  an  impodor,  is  acknowledged  :  that  he 
abclifhed  idolatry,  mud  alfo  be  allowed  ;  and  thus  two 
oppofite  characters  are  ignited  in  him.  If  he  turned  a 
great  part  of  the  world  from  Chril'lian  idolatry  ; — for  fo 
I  call  that  worfiiip  which  Chriftians  pay  to  Jefi^s  Chrid, 
if  he  be  not  God; — by  what  fpirit  performed  he  fo  great 
a  work?  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  fpirit  of  the  devil? 
Tf  by  the  latter^  how  came  he  to  abolilh  idolatry  ?  If  by 
the  former^  how  could  he  be  an  impoflor  ? 

It   may   be    objeâed,    *  Mahom.et    condemned    I'hc 

•  worfhip  of  the  Pagan  idols,  and  fo  the  dilemma  may 
■*  be  retorted/  But  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
piinciples  which  he  fuppofed,  and  thofe  which  he 
tflabliflied.  The  knowledge  of  the  true  God  had  been 
introduced  among  the  Heathen,  and  Pagan  idolatry  was 
deftroyed,  before  he  appeared  in  the  world.  It  was 
not  Mahomet,  but  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  preaching 
of  his  apodles,  who  produced  thtfe  great  eife<fts  :  and 
Mahomet,  by  what  fpirit  foever  he  is  fuppofed  to  have 
been  infpired,  neither  durfl  have  attempted  to  introduce, 
nor  could  have  eftablilhed,  a  religion  in  the  woMd^ 
contrary  to  thçm. 


^2CT.  î.  53  CHAP,  ir* 

Bat  the  cafe  is  not  the  fame,  in  regard  to  the  true 
knowledge  of  Chrift  and  the  deftru61ion  of  Cliriflinn 
idolatry.  It  was  Mahomet  who  taught  mankind^  th  it 
CiirilUans,  in  woifhipping  Jefus  ChriO:  as  God,  were 
guilty  of  idolatry.  It  was  hi&  chief  defign  to  reclify 
the  mifhik^s  of  thofe,  who,  as  he  thought,  worQ-iipped 
feveral  gods  under  the  name  of  a  Trinity  ;  for  fb  he 
fpeaks  in  his  Koran.  As,  therefore,  Chiift  and  his 
apod  les  weie  the  reformers  of  the  Heathen  world,  by 
deftroying  Pagan  idolatry  ;  fo  Mahomet  ought  to-  have 
the  honour  cf  reforming  the  Chridian  world,  if  it  hz 
true  that  he  really  dellroycd  the  Chriflian  idolatry. — 
But,  as  we  fliould  have  had  abundant  caufe  of  aflonifh- 
nient,  if  the  apoiUes  had  deftroyed  the  Pagan  idolatry 
and  converted  the  Hearhen  woild.  by  preaching  fables; 
fo  we  fhoiild  have  equal  reafon  to  be  furpriied,  if 
Mahomet  aboliilicd  the  CiiriOian  idolatry  by  impofture. 

Befides,  Jefub  Chri(t  declares,  that  teachers  ars 
**  known  by  th-^ir  iVults."  This  maxim  inu(}  be  true, 
becaufe  it  svas  f^>oken  by  truth  itfelf.  If,  then,  we 
apply  this  piin^ipîe  to  the- cafe  before  us>  we  cannot  bat 
conceive  an  high  opinion  of  Mahomet,  and  acknowledge 
him  to  hà\'ç  been  a  great  prO|)het.  It  i"?  no  more  than 
judicc  to  his  character,  if  he  was  ihe  perfbn  who  taught 
mankind  the  iniquity  and  the  danger  of  confounding 
God  with  a  creature,  lor  he  has  enlightened  many 
nations  and  many  ages.  L,;k^  a  wife  and  fincere 
v.-orPnipper  of  his  M.iker,  and  the  friend  of  mankind, 
he  has  placed  Gcd  on  the  throne  of  God,  and  the 
creature  in  the  rank  of  a  creature.  What  more  lav.'ful, 
v/lut  more  holy,  than  fach  a  dengn  ?  What  could  be 
nobler,  what  greater,  th  in  fuch  a  work  ?  If  Mahomet 
have  indeed  enlightened  tiie  world,  by  afferti ng  die 
rights  of  the  Deity,  and  overturning  the  Chrittian 
idolatry,  he  deferves  thofe  titles  of  honour  which  the 
MufTulmen  give  him;  and  we  may  boldly  affirm,  that 
he  ought  to  be  confidered,  as  a  teacher  of  truth  and  a 
;;rophet  of  God — a  prophet,  grcatei  than  any  that  were 


«ECT.  I.  24  CHAP.  II, 

under  the  lav/,  greater  than  Jefus  Chrift.  Thefe  are 
fh-ange  and  fhocking  paradoxes,  yet  certain  and  una- 
voidable truths,  if  Chrilt  be  not  the  true  God. 

1  faid,  he  is  a  teacher  of  truth.  This  cannot  be 
denied,  while  he  teaches  mankind  fuch  tflential  truths. 
This  firft  principle  of  facrcd  truth,  A  mere  creature  ought 
not  to  he  ivorjlr.ipped as  God;  is  the  foundation  of  natural 
religion,  as  (iii{.inguifl;»fcd  from  fuperilition — of  the 
Jewiih  rehgion,  as  oppofed  to  Pagan  idolatry — and  of  the 
ChriQian  religion,  confidered  in  its  purity.  Mahomet, 
then,  who  efiablifhed  his  religion  on  this  grand  principle^ 
is  a  teacher  of  truth,  of  divine  truth  ;  even  of  that  truth 
Vvhich,  of  all  others,  is  mofl  important  and  eflential  tcx 
religion. 

*  But  Mahomet  aims  at  the  gratification  of   fordid 

*  paflions,  and  is  rather  a  teacher  of  the  flefh  than  of  the 

*  ipiiit/  If  fo>  we  have  reafon  to  wonder  that  fo  much 
truth  is  attended  with  fo  much  impurity  and  vice  ;  for 
light  and  darknefs  have  r-o  communion.  If,  then,  he 
did  not  aft  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  muft  have  been  by 
the  fpirit  cf  the  world  ;  and  if  by  the  latter,  then  not  by 
the  former.  We  muft,  therefore,  inquire  after  the 
characters  of  thefe  two  fpirits  in  him. — We  are  tokl, 
that  *  He  is  impure  in  his  maxims  and  morals  '  This 
is  a  charader  of  the  fpirit  of  the  world  ;  but  the  fadt 
muft  be  admitted  with  fome  reflridion.  For  Mahomet 
reformed  religion,  by  overturning  the  Chriflian  idolatry 
and  caufing  God  only  to  be  worlhipped,  through  a  great 
part  of  the  world.  This  is,  undoubtedly,  a  charaâer 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  a  ftrong  prefumption  in  his 
favour.  For  how  fliould  an  impoflor  promote  the  good- 
pleafure  and  the  honour  of  God,  by  enlightening  man- 
kind and  deftroying  idolatry  ?  What,  has  God  inve(ted 
animpollor  with  the  higheil  charaéler  of  his  own  prophets, 
and  with  that  of  his  own  Son  1  For  the  prophets,  who 
predicted  the  coming  of  the  MefTiah,  foretold  alfo,  as  a 
charadlerof  his  appearance,  that  he  fliould  deflroy  idola- 
try.    Vv^hat,  has  the  mofl  HoJy  made  an  impollor  the 


SECT.   I.  25  CHAP.   ir. 

inflrumejit  of  his  mercy  and  the  minifrcr  of  his  glory  ! 
What  fiiouid  we  have  thought  of  the  divine  conduct:,  if 
God  had  chofen  devils  incarnate  to  be  his  meffsngers  to 
mankind  and  preachers  cf  his  gofpel  ?  We  fhould  cer- 
tainly have  concluded,  either  that  he  intended  to  render 
the  gofpel  detellable,  by  putting  it  into  the  mouths  c£ 
devils  ;  or,  that  he  defigned  to  confecrate  thofe  apoflate 
fpirits,  by  making  them  the  depofitaries  cf  his  truth, 
and  miniders  of  his  grace  *.  This  comparifon  is  tl  c 
fitter,  for  its  being  odious,  to  illuflrate  the  point.  For 
v/hat  we  fay  of  the  devil,  may  be  faid  of  feduccrs,  his 
miniflers,  in  generr.l,  and  of  M.ihomet,  in  a  particular 
manner.  That  is,  if  he,  being  an  impoftor,  was  chofea 
of  God  to  re  elhiblifli  the  true  religion,  by  dcflroying 
the  Chriilian  idolatry  ;  Providence  muft  have  deligned, 
either  to  render  religion  infamous,  or  to  confecrate  the 
impoflor  by  choofing  and  employing  him  in  a  work  fo 
great,  fo  glorious,  i'o  divine:  b^  ch  which  fu^^pofitions 
are  impious  and  abominable. 


•  The  Evangelical  Irficry  ar.i  rhc  A(fl<;  of  the  arnflle?  inform 
us,  it  mull  be  acknov;Iedgcd,  of  attcfÎL:tions  that  were  given  to 
the  dignity  of  oizr  Lord's  perfon  vltkI  (he  truth  of  h.is  gof^^el,  by 
infernal  fpirits.  But  tlicre  is  a  great  and  nianife.;t  (l'iïeronce, 
between  thofe  occafional.  trar.fient,  and  rejcxfled  te.limonie»!  ; 
and  the  cafe  which  is  here  fuppofjj.  See  AZin/:  i.  :3.  24,  25. 
LrjhW,  33,  34,  :^5.  A5ÏS  xvi.  17,  18. 


\ 


SLCT.   I.  26  CHAP.    Ill, 


CHAPTER    II L 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  cfT-'ncc  v/ith  his  FaUuT, 
Mahomet  was  a  great  prophet,  the  greatell  of  prophets,  and 
preferable  to  Jesus  Christ. 

ivi  AKOMET,  on  the  principles  of  our  oppo- 
ncnh,  v/as  a  great  prophet,  and  fuperior  to  any  of  the 
prophets  under  the  Old  TelhinieiU.  This  will  appear, 
if  the  foliovving  things  be  confidcrcd.  The  ancient 
prophets  fpake  only  to  the  people  of  Ifrael  ;  but  Maho- 
met to  the  ïvmH  and  nioll  confidcrable  pai  t  of  tlie  world. 
Of  :heni  there  was  a  long  fucceirion,  yet  not  effedual  10 
prcfcrve  a  iingle  nation  from  idolatry;  but  he  had  no 
need  of  a  conripanion,  or  fucceflcr,  to  banifli  idolatry 
for  ever,  from  thofe  countries  where  his  dodrine  has 
been  received.  They  were  raifed  up  in  an  extraordlnary 
manner»  and  wroughtviriousmiracles,  in  orderto  dcilroy 
idolatry  ;  but  he  delivered  a  great  part  ef  the  world  fi  cm 
the  Chridian  idolatry,  without  the  afllilance  of  one 
miracle.  Mofes,  though  the  greateft  of  the  ancient 
prophets,  did  not  know  God  as  he  is  ;  Jefus  Chrid, 
and  he  only,  knew  him  perfeélly  andmadehim  known  to 
men.  But  if  the  doélrine  of  our  adverfaries  be  true, 
Mahomet  has  made  him  known  much  better  than  Jefus 
Chrifl:  :  which  leads  us  to  fhew,  that  theforwcr,  accor- 
ding to  their  hypcthefis,  ought  to  be  confidered  as  a 
greater  prophet  than  the  laJier. 

This  appears  from  his  dodrine,  and  the  fuccefs  of  his 
miniftry.  As  to  the  fuccefs  of  his  miriifry^  the  thing 
fpeaks  for  itfelf.  Jefus,  indeed,  caufed  his  gofpel  to 
be  preached  and  received  throughout  the  world,  but 
then  he  has  hardly  deilroycd  one  kind  of  idolatry, 
before  his  followers  lapfe  ir.to  another  :  for  they  are  no 
fooncr  delivered  from  Pagan,  than  ihey  fall  into  Chriftian 


sr^CT.  I.  27  CHAP,  u:, 

idolatry.  But  Mahomet  eflablilTied  his  religion  on 
in  mer  foundations.  He  took  wifer  ard  jufter  meafurts, 
to  preferve  his  difciples  from  relapfing  into  idolatry,  in 
future  ;  nor  have  they  ever  difcorered  an  inclliiation  fo 
to  do.  The  difadvantage  of  Jefus  Ch.-ill,  upon  the 
comparifon,  arifes  from  this  :  The  dovflrine  cf  Mahomet 
has  in  it  a  natural  charaifler,  wh-'ch  h  mo;e  opnofiie  to 
idolatry,  than  the  doâiine  of  Cnvift.  The  reader,  in 
order  to  be  convinced  of  this,  need  only  to  confidcr 
t])C  language  of  Jefus,  in  the  vvriiings  of  the  New 
'i'ellament,  and  compare  it  with  ihc  ia.iguage  of  Maho- 
niet,  in  his  Koran. 

Jcfus  tells  us  in  his  New  Ttdamcnt,  **  Th.-.t  he  was 
*'  before  John  the  Baptii'l,  ard  before  Abraham  — 
**  That  he  had  a  glory  wiîh  his  Father,  before  the  world 
**  was  created — That  he  was  in  the  b.ginnirg  ;  that  h:: 
**  was  with  God,  and  was  God — That  all  things  were 
**  created  by  him,  whether  they  be  vifible  or  invifible — 
**  That  all  things  were  not  only  created  by  him,  but 
**  for  him  ;  and  that  by  him  all  things  confi.l — That  he 
**  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  that  the  heavens 
**  are  the  works  of  his  hands — That  he  is  the  x-\lph.i  and 
«<  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  th3  End,  the  Fir(l;  and 
*'  the  Lad — And,  that  there  is  one  Lord,  Jcfus  Chriil, 
**  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him." — In  the 
fame  facred  rule  of  our  fiiih  and  pradice,  he  is  called, 
**  The  Son  cf  God — his  own  Son — and  his  only 
**  begotten  Son."  He  is  further  called,  *'  The  Lord 
«<  — Lord  and  God — Gob  with  us — God  m?.nifeli  i:i 
*■•  the  flefli — The  true  God — The  great  God  and 
*'  Saviour." 

And,  that  we  might  not  be  at  a  lofs  for  the  f(.nR*, 
in  which  thefe  names  and  chara.^ers  are  g^ven  to  him, 
\ve  fiiid  him  applying  to  himfclf  many  orack-s  of  th- 
prophets,  which  undoubtedly  fp'cak  of  the  true  God, 
and  contain  the  chara^flers  of  his  peculiar  glory. — 
Solomon,  for  inflance,  addrefiing  himfelf  to  the  God 
ci  Ifiacl,  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple,  (kid  ;  *'  Thou, 
C   2 


>LCT.   I.  C8  CHAP.   III. 

"  even  tliou  only,  knowefl  the  hearts  of  the  children  of 
*'  men.'*  Jefus  claims  th.s  Divine  prerogative,  in  the 
moft  fo'emn  manner,  as  that  which  fhall  cngaj^c  the 
icar  and  wonder  cf  all  his  dliciples.  "  All  the  churchjs 
'•T.'.ail  know  that  I  am  He  which  search eth  the 
"  REINS  AND  HEARTS  ;  and  I  will  give  unto  every  one 
*•  of  ycu  according  to  your  works." — It  is  written  in 
the  law,  according  to  the  expofuicn  of  Jefus  Chrilt  ; 
'=  Thou  fliak  worfliip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only 
''  flîah  thou  ferve."  Yet  an  infallible  v/riter  afTiires  us, 
that  when  God  brought  his  Firfi-begotten  into  the  world 
lie  faid,  "Let  all  the  angels  of  God  w^orship  him.'* 
— Concerning  Jekotah  the  pfalmifl:  (ings;  "  Cfold 
"  liaft  thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the 
*'  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy  hands.  They  (hall 
•*  periih,  but  thou  (halt  endure  ;  thou  art  the  fame, 
'•  and  thy  years  Hîall  have  no  end."  That  thefe  things 
are  raTcrted  of  God  none  can  doubt  ;  and  that  they  are 
j.pplicable  to  none  but  Him,  is,  I  fhould  think,  ec»ually 
evident.  Yet  it  is  paii:  denial  that  this  text  is  exprefsly 
Rpplicd  to  Jefus  Chiill.  "  Unto  the  Son  he  faith,  Thy 
**  throne,  O  Gc;d,  is  for  ever  and  ever — And,  thou 
*'  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  haft  laid  the  foundation  of 
*v  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine 
'•  hands.  They  fhail  perifli,  but  thou  remained: — thou 
'•  art  the  fame,  and  thy  years  Hiall  not  fail." — It  is 
cf  Jfhovah  thofe  words  were  fpoken;  "  The  chariots 
"  of  God  are  twenty  thoufind,  even  thoufands  of  angels. 
'*  The  Lord  is  among  them,  as  in  Sinai,  in  the  hc^ly 
•«  place.  Thou  haft  afcended  on  high  ;  thou  h  ul 
*'  led  c?.p"i\ity  captive  ;  thou  haft  received  gins  for  men." 
God  only  has  legions  of  angels  under  his  command  and 
Lt  his  difpofal.  God  only  can  difpenfe  heavenly  dona- 
tives to  rebellious  men.  And  yet  Jefus  Chrift,  by  the 
pen  of  his  apoftle,  applies  this  paftage  to  himfelf,  in  the 
moft  direa:  manner.  "  Wherefore  he  faith,  When  he 
*•  afcended  up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and 
*'  g^ve  gifts  unto  men.     Now  that  he  afcended,   what 


CECT.   I.  29  CHAP.   IV, 

**  is  it  but  that  he  alfo  defcendv^d  firft  into  the  h)\ver 
*' parts  of  the  earth?" — ^Once  more:  It  is  God,  tl;o 
infinite,  eternal  Jehovah,  vho  fpeaks  in  the  followinc^ 
fjbhnie  pafTage  ;  "  I  have  fworn  by  myfclf,  the  v/ord 
*'  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteoufnefs,  and  fliall 
"  not  return,  thu  unto  me  every  knee  fiiall  bow,  everj»- 
<*  tongue  fliall  fwear."  This  text  a!fo  is  apphed  to 
-Jefus  Chriil,  by  his  faithful  for  van  t  Paul.  »'  We  fliall 
*'  all  (land  before  the  judgment  feat  of  Chiifl.  For  it 
*'  is  written,  As  I  live  faith  the  Lord,  every  knee  fliall 
*'  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  fhall  ccnfcfs  to  God." — 
■Quotations  of  a  fimilar  kind,  might  be  eafily  multiplied  ; 
but  thcfc  may  fjflice  to  fliew,  hov/  Jt-fus  Chrift  fpeaks 
cf  hlmfelf,  and  taught  his  apofties  to  fpeak  of  him.  •  i 
UyaW  now  proceed  to  Ihew,  in  the  following  Chapter,  hc\/ 
Mahomet  fncaks  of  himfelf,  and  how  carefully  he  guards 
again (t  idolatry. 


CHAPTER     JV. 

IT  j£St;s  CuRîîT  be  not  of  the  Hime  cfRnce  with  his  Father, 
Mahomet  was  more  true,  more  wife,  more  concerned  for  tJie 
^ood  of  mankind,  and  more  zealous  for  the  glory  of  God, 
than  he. 

V V  E  have  feen  that  Jefus  Chrifl  equals  him- 
felf with  God,  by  faying  of  himfelf  fuch  things,  and 
applying  to  himfelf  fuch  oracles,  as  cannot  belong  to  any 
but  the  Supreme  Being. — Thus  did  not  Mahomet. 
For  he  declares,  in  almoll  every  page  of  his  Koran,  that 
none  but  the  eternal  Father  is  God.  He  indeed,  calls 
liimfelf  a  prophet,  a  man  divinely  fent  ;  but  he  lays  no 
claim  to  Divinity.  He  acknowledges  that  Jefus  CliriR 
iiad  a  divine  miflicn  j  but  will  rot  allow  him  to  be  called 

c  3 


SECT.  I.  30  CHAP.   IV. 

God,  nor  the  Son  of  God.     There  is  not  the  leaft 

ambiguity   in   his  language,    on  this  imjiortant    rubjeiH:. 

He  plainly  alTcrts,    that  they  who  fay,   *  The   Son   of 

Mary    is    God,    are    infidels.'      And    avers,    *  That 

Chri(t,  the  Son  of  Mary,  is  no  more  lîian  God's  envoy.* 

That  the  *  Chii.lians  are  infidels,  by  making //;;/vr  gods, 

*  when  there  is  but  one.^     Nay,  he  thus  reprefents  God 
as  complaining  to  Jefus  Chrift  ;  <  O,  Jefus,  Son  of  Mary, 

*  do(i  thou  perfuade  mankind  to   put   thy  Mother   and 

*  Thee  in  the  place  of  God,   and  to  worfhip  you,  as  if 

*  ye  were  Gods  ?'  To  which  he    reprefer'.ts   Jefus  as 
anfwering;   *  God  forbid,   that  I  fliould  fay  any  thing 

*  contrary  to  the  truth  !   Thou  knoweft  whether  I  have 

*  taught  that  dodrine.  or  no.   Thou  knoweft  the  fecrc^s 

*  of    all     hearts.' — He     requires     that     men      fliould 

*  wotfnip  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  who 

*  made   the   light  and    the    darkncfs.'      And    he    c?.l!s 
thofe  '  infidels,    who  fet  up  Chriit,  as  equal  to  God-' 

Hence  it  appears,  on  the  principles  of  our  adverfaries:, 
that  Mahomet  was  more  true^  more  ivifey  more  concerned 
for  the  good  of  manhind^  and  more  zea'ous  for  the  glory 
of  God,  than  Jefus  Chriil.  This  conclufion  wc  abhor, 
as  full  of  blafphemy  ;  and  yet  we  cannot  but  confider  i: 
as  unavoidable,  if  the  fentiments  we  oppofe  be  true. 

If  Chrlfl  be  not  of  the  fame  efTence  with  his  Father, 
Mahomet  was  more  true  than  he;  at  leaft,  in  thofe  things 
which  regard  the  fundamentals  of  religion  and  the  glory 
of  God.  This  will  appear  if  you  rccollefl  the  manner 
in  which  our  Lord  fpeaks  of  himfelf,  and  how,  by  the 
diredion  of  his  own  Spirit,  his  apoflles  reprefent  him,  in 
the  Script ure-teRimonies  adduced  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter; and  compare  them  with  thcdeclarations  of  Mahomet, 
which  are  diredly  contrary,  as  is  manifeft  from  the 
quotations  juft  now  produced  from  his  Koran.  In  the 
former,  Jefus  is  defcribed  as  bearing  divine  charafiers 
and  poflefTing  divine  perfedions  ;  as  performing  divine 
v/orks  and  as  being  the  true  God  ;  but  in  the  Litter,  as 
a  mere  creature,   and  infinitely  inferior   to  Jehovah. 


i 


SLCT.  I.  51  CHAP.  IV. 

The  language  of  the  Bible,  theiefure,  and  the  languap^e 
of  the  Koran,  cannot  be  both  true,  beciiufe  tlity  are 
contradictory.  But  that  of  the  Koran,  which  exprefsly 
afllrts  that  Chrifl  is  a  mere  creature,  and  ouglit  not  to 
be  confidered  as  the  Supreme  Being,  is  not  faife,  if  he 
be  indeed  a  mere  creature.  The  inference,  then,  is  plain 
and  unavoidable,  though  fliocking  and  horrid  ;  it  is  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  tlie  language  of  Jcfus  Chiifl,  that 
is  void  of  truth. 

It  will  be  faid  ;  *  The  exprefTions  of  Mahomet  are 

*  proper  and  literal,    but'thole  of  Chi  ill   figurative  and 

*  hyperbolical  ;  fo  that,  though  contrary  in  appearance, 

*  yet  not  in  reality.'  But  what  pi  oof  is  there,  that  the 
language  of  Chriit  is  figurative  ?  BeHdes,  it  is  unlawful, 
it  is  highly  criminal,  to  make  ufe  of  fuch  figures  as  are 
injurious  to  the  glory  of  God.  We  could  not,  without 
profanenefs,  fiiy  ;  Such  a  man  is  equal  to  God,  in 
^^■ifdom  and  power,  in  greatnefs  and  grandeur.  And  it 
would  be  but  a  poor  apology  for  the  ufe  of  fuch  expref- 
(ions,  were  we  to  endeavour  to  defend  them  by  fayirp  ; 
They  were  applied,  and  are  to  be  undcrflocd,'  in  a 
hyperbolical,  and  not  a  literal  fenfe.  For  we  fhould 
foon  be  told,  that  fome  figures  are  impious;  and  that 
fuch  hyperboles  as  equal  the  creature  with  the  Creator, 
T.re  to  be  deteded,  as  abfolutely  unlawful. — If  in  the 
{lyle  of  the  world,  mortal  beauties  be  called  cJoralle;  if 
they  (>e  fpoken  of  as  fo  many  dïvitùtles;  the  language, 
though  figurative,  is  manifcllly  profane  ;  though  nobody 
can  be  fo  far  deceived  by  it,  as  to  miflake  a  beautiful 
woman  for  a  divinity.  For  if  thefe  figures,  either 
direâly,  or  indire<511y,  imply  a  want  of  reverence  for 
God,  it  is  enough   to  denominate  them  impious.     If, 

.then,  in  human  language,  we  ought  not  to  fufter  fuch 
figures  as  indicate  a  want  of  refped  for  the  Deity; 
much  lefs  ought  fuch  expreffions  to  be  ufed  in  a  language 
Ticted  and  divine,  as  is  that  of  the  Bible.  And  if  fuch 
liyperboles  be  infufferable,  when  doing  honour  to  mortal 

'beauties,  whom  we  cannot  pofiïbly  miftake  for  the  true 


SECT.   I.  32  CHAP.   IV. 

God  ;  how  much  more  dangerous  and  iniquitous  would 
they  be,  when  ufed  concerning  a  fubjecl  who  might,  as 
the  event  has  fliewn,  in  refpeft  of  Chrill,  be  eafiJy 
taken  for  the  Supreme  Being  ! 

Again  :  If  Jefus  Chriîl  be  not  of  the  fame  effence 
with  his  Father,  Mahomet  was  much  nv'ifcr  tiian  he. 
As  wifdom  conflits  in  choufmg  the  be!t  means  for 
obtaining  a  propofcd  end  ;  we  need  only  examine, 
What  w^as  the  end  of  each,  in  eH^abhiliing  his  rehgion  ; 
and  then  inquire,  What  method  the  one  and  the  other 
took,  to  fucceed  in  their  defigns  — Mahomet's  deiign 
v/as,  as  he  declares,  to  make  known  the  true  God.  as 
exalted  far  above  all  creatures — to  make  him  known, 
as  the  only  object  of  religious  worfliip  ;  who  ought  to 
be  dirtinguifhed  from  all  other  beings,  even  from  Chrill 
himfelf  :  maintaining,  that  Jefus  is  far  from  partaking 
with  his  Father  in  the  glories  of  the  Deity.  Of  thefe 
things  Mahomet  endeavours  to  perfuade  mankind.  And 
for  this  purpofe  he  makes  ufe  of  plain,  and  Hrong,  and 
proper  exprcaions.  He  loudly  and  vehemently  declares, 
that  they  who  treat  Jefas  Chrift  as  God,  are  idolaters  ; 
v/hich  is  the  direâ:  way  to  accomplifh  his  defign. — It  is 
fuppofed  alfo,  that  the  great  end  of  Jefus  Chrift  is  to 
glorify  God.  To  glorify  Gody  is,  according  to  the 
language  of  infpiration,  to  exalt  him  far  above  all  other 
beings.  The  ancient  prophets  foretelling  that  God 
fliould  be  glorified,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  in  the 
latter  times,  exprefs  their  ideas  in  the  following  words  ; 
**  The  lofty  looks  of  men  fhall  be  humbled,  and  the 
*'  haughtinefs  of  man  (hall  be  bowed  down,  and  the 
*'  Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day." 
But  Chrift  debafes  God,  at  the  very  time  he  profefics 
to  exalt  him  ;  for,  by  his  exprefTions,  he  puts  himfelf  in 
the  place  of  God.  This  he  does,  when  he  calls  himfelf 
God  ;  when  he  claims  divine  perfedions  ;  when  he 
attributes  to  himfelf  the  work  of  creation  ;  and  when  he 
applies  to  himfelf  thofe  oracles  of  the  prophets  which 
difplay  the  efTfntial  chara(5lers  of  the  Supreme  Being. 


SECT.  :.  33  CÎIAP.   IV. 

If  it  be  faiJ,  «  It  is  uifncient  that  Chiift  declares,  h]s 
'  Fcther  is  greater  than  he  :^  I  anfwer,  It  would  be  a 
haughty  kind  of  modelly  for  a  mere  creature  to  fay, 
T iie*  Fornier  of  all  ihi;;gs  is  greater  than  I.  Neither 
Mofes  nor  Ifaiah,  nor  any  of  the  prophets,  ever  ufcd 
fach  langusge.  A  loyal  fuojet*!  never  affe^s  to  fay, 
The  king  is  greater  than  I.  That  is  taken  for  granted. 
Nor  will  a  holy  creature  make  ufe  of  fuch  language, 
concerning  his  Creator  ;  becaufe  it  woild  be,  in  fome 
f:;nfe,  to  compare  himfelf  with  the  infinite  God.— 
BefidcG,  what  would  it  avail  for  Jefus,  once  in  the  courfe 
cf  his  converfe  on  earth,  to  fay,  *'  My  Father  is  greater 
'*  than  I  ;"  vhen  in  the  general  tenoar  of  his  conduct 
and  Lnguagc,  and  in  the  language  he  tau;^ht  his  difciples, 
he  fpeaks  and  a;1s  as  if  he  were  the  true  God  ? 

It  may,    perhaps,   be   replied,   '  Kere    you  beg  the 

*  quelUon  :    for    thofe    exprelTions,    from    which    your 

*  conclufion  is  drawn,  require  a  very  diiTcrent  interpre- 

*  tâtion.'  VvHien,  for  inilance,  Jefas  is  called  God, 
Our  adverfaries  will  have  the  name  to  fignify,  that  he 
was  fent  from  God  and  reprcfents  God.  When  he  is 
faid  to  have  *'  made  the  woilds;"  the  meaning  is,  that 
he  made  the  happinefs  of  the  age  to  come,  or  the 
kingdom  of  the  Nlefliah,  which  was  fo  eagerly  expected 
by  the  ancient  Jews.  When  it  is  faid,  "  He  was  ia 
*'  the  beginning,*'  and  **  all  things  were  made  by 
•'  him  ;"  the  exprefllons  mean,  that  he  was  from  the 
time  of  John  the  Bapilfl,  is  the  author  of  the  gofptl,  and 
of  all  that  is  done  under  that  difpenfaiion.  When  he 
is  called,  *'  God  manifeft  in  the  flefh;"  the  character 
fignifies  a  creature  that  reprefents  God.  And  when  it 
is  faid,  that  *'  he  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and 
**  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  his  hands  ;"  the  exprefi 
fions  are  ufed  and  the  works  afcribed  to  him,  by  way 
of  accomodation,  and  not  in  a  literal  and  proper  fenfe. — 
A  fmall  (liare  of  common  fenfe  is  quite  fufficient  to  (hew 
how  unnatutal  and  violent  thele  interpretations  are. 
But,  fiippofing  they  were  to  the  purpofe,  it  could  nof 


SECT.   I.  34  CHAP.   IV. 

be  denied,  that  thefe  expreffions  of  Scripture,  if  they 
mufl:  be  taken  according  to  thefe  explanations,  are  very 
obfcure  and  equivocal.  It  could  not,  I  fay.  be  denied  ; 
fmce  the  far  greater  part  of  the  Chriftian  world  has  been 
ignorant  of  their  meaning  for  fo  many  ages  ;  and  fmce 
the  firft  imprellion  they  naturally  form  on  our  minds, 
fuggeds  the  propriety  of  a  very  different  interpretation. 
This  evinces,  if  I  may  fay  it  without  blafphemy,  that 
Chrid  was  not  {o  prudent  in  the  choice  of  his  language 
as  Mahomet.  For  that  pretended  prophet  always  fpeaks 
in  a  clear,  firong,  peremptory  manner,  in  order  to  fhew, 
that  it  is  not  lawful,  on  any  confideration,  to  reprefent  a 
creature  as  pofTefTed  of  the  characters  and  properties  of 
God.  Whereas  Chriiland  his  apoflles  have  ufed  many 
exprefnons  that  are  obfcure  and  equivocal  ;  fuch  as,  in 
their  mofi  common  acceptation,  feem  to  invefla  creature, 
a  mere  man,  with  the  glories  of  the  Deity  :  wc  being 
obliged  to  underdand  the  terms  of  v.hich  a  difcourfç 
confifls,  in  their  common  and  natural  fignification,  and 
not  in  one  tliUt  is  uncommon  and  forced.  Confcquently 
the  language  of  Mahomet  is  more  proper  to  glorify  God, 
than  the  language  of  Chrid;  and,  therefore,  if  the 
defign  of  the  Litter  was  to  honour  and  exalt  God,  he  has 
not  fuccceded  in  it  fo  well  as  the  former. 

Further  ;  If  the  fentiments  of  our  adverfaries  be 
true,  Mahomet  was  more  concerned  for  the  good  of 
mankind  than  Jefus  Chrill:.  This  appears  from  hence. 
A  prudent  and  diligent  endeavour  to  preferve  men  from 
iilolatry,  is  one  of  the  greatcfl:  marks  of  a  fincere  regard 
to  their  happinefs  ;  becaufe  idolatry  deftroys  their  fouls, 
by  excluding  them  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If, 
then,  Jefus  Chrift  be  not  a  divine  perfon,  of  the  fame 
effence  with  his  Father,  he  has  not  taken  proper  meafures 
to  preferve  men  from  tlse  dreadful  evil  of  idolatry,  while 
Mahomet  has  done  it  efreclually  :  for  he  has  aboli(hed 
the  Chridian  idolatry  in  a  great  part  of  the  world,  and 
laid  fdch  foundations  of  his  own  religion,  that  a  man 
cannot  be  guilty  of  idolatry,  without  firil  chafing  to  be 


SECT.  ï.  35  CHAP,  IV. 

his  difciple.  But  as  for  Chrift,  he  has  given  occafion  to 
it  ;  he  has  laid  a  foundation  for  it.  For  he  does  not 
onjy  permit  and  diredt  his  difciples  to  give  him  the  tides 
of  the  Supreme  Being  ;  but  alio  to  afcribe  to  him  the 
perfedions  and  works  of  the  Deity,  and  to  apply  to  Jnni 
many  of  the  fubHmeft  oracles  of  the  Old  Teftunient, 
which  relate  to  the  God  of  Ifrael. 

It  was,  for  inftance,  a  very  furprlGng  thing,  that 
Jefus,  when  he  appeared  to  Thomas,  after  his  refurrec- 
tion,  fhould  fuffer  him  to  cry  out,  •'  my  Lord,  and 
My  God!"  without  faying  a  word  to  him  about  the 
impiety  and  blafphemy  of  an  exclamation,  which  treats 
liie  creature  as  if  he  were  the  Creator.  Thomas,  before, 
was  an  unbeliever;  now  he  is  an  idolater.  Till  that 
inHant,  he  would  not  believe  that  Jefus  was  rifen  ;  he 
ccnfidercd  him  as  a  man  lying  under  the  power  of  death; 
but  now,  on  a  fudden,  he  addrcfies  him  as  God  ;  he 
bows  and  adores.  Of  the  two  extrem.es,  the  latiei  is 
moft  condemnable  ;  for  unbelief  is  not  fo  criminal  as 
idolatry.  That  diflionouring  Jefus  Chri/l  ;  this  ufurping 
the  throne  of  God.  Better  for  Thomas,  therefore,  to 
have  perfided  in  this  unbelief,  than,  by  renouncing  it, 
to  fidl  into  idolatry.  And  yet — Grange  indeed!  flrange 
to  afîoniflimcnt  !  w  ho  can  account  for  it  ?  Jefus  upbraids 
him  only  with  ihe  former  ;  not  at  all  with  the  latter. — 
Befides,  as  our  Lord  could  net  but  know  what  an  impref- 
fion  thefe  woids  of  his  amazed  and  adoring  apoftle  would 
make  on  the  minds  cf  men  ;  as  he  !;new  th.at  the  Jews, 
deceived  by  exprefhons  lefs  acceptionable  than  thefe,  had 
accufed  liim  of  blafphemy  ;  and  as  he  knew  that  thefe 
very  exprefixns  would  give  occafion  to  Chriflians  in  fuc- 
ceeding  ages,  to  treat  him  as  the  true  God  ;  ic  is  evident 
that  he  ci  ght,  from  a  ccncern  for  tlie  good  of  mankind, 
to  have  ftridly  prohibited  all  expreflions,  which  tended 
to  make  fucli  a  dangerous  impreflion.  And  yet  he  rot 
only  permits  his  difciples  io  fpenk  after  this  m=anner  ;  but 
dire<as  them  to  record  the  exprefFions,  for  the  perufal  of 
all  future  generaticcs  ;  and  that  without  giving  the  leaft 


SECT.   I.  36  CIIAF.  IV. 

hint,  thr.t  the  terms  are  ufed  in  a  new  and  uncommon 
fer.fe,  though  they  apnear  fo  impious  and  blafjjhemous. 
Once  more  :  If  Te'V.s  Chrill  be  not  of  the  fame  effence 
with  his  Father,  Mahomet  was  more  zealous  for  the  glory 
of  God  than  he.  The  effcntial  glory  of  God  conflits  in 
the  eminence  of  his  perfedions,  by  which  he  is  infinitely 
exalted  above  all  other  being?  ;  and  his  manifcflative 
glory,  or  the  honour  he  receives  from  his  rational  crea- 
tures in  the  acts  of  religion,  by  which  he  is  diiHnguiilied 
from  every  creature.  Now  Mahomet  has  glorified  God, 
by  diflinguifhing  him  from  all  other  beings  :  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  he  has  been  thus  honoured  by  Jefus 
Chrifr  ;  fince  his  own  exprefiions  and  conduft,  and  the 
language  of  his  apofUes,  have  a  natural  tendency  to 
make  us  confider  a  mere  creature  as  the  Great  Supreme. 
All  expreiTions,  which  attribute  to  a  creature  the  cha- 
racters of  God's  glory,  are  facrilegious.  Nay,  though 
they  might  receive  a  fenfe  which  is  not  impious  ;  yet 
they  are  unlawful,  if  their  ambiguity  be  fuch  as  renders 
them  liable  to  be  mifinterpreted,  to  the  dillionour  of 
God,  by  an  impartial  fearcher  after  truth.  For  if,  in 
civil  commerce,  equivocal  language,  which,  without 
any  force  upon  the  expre£:ons,  may  be  fo  underftood 
as  to  injure  a  lawful  fovereign,  would  be  accounted 
criminal  ;  and  if,  when  the  dignity  of  majefty  is  deeply 
interefled,  wc  confider  the  filence  of  feme  and  the  equi- 
,  vocations  of  others,  who  ought  to  fpeak  clearly  for  their 
mafter's  honour,  as  fo  many  implicit  ads  of  treafon  ; 
have  we  not  reafon  to  condemn  equivocations  in  the 
cafe  before  us,  of  impiety  and  blàfphemy,  though  there 
"were  nothing  elfe  to  induce  us  to  do  it  ?  But  a  man 
niuft:  be  wilfully  blind  who  does  not  fee,  that  there  is 
fomething  more  than  mere  ambiguity,  in  a  language 
which  is  little  fhort  of  a  perpetual  application  of  the 
characleriuics  of  God's  glory  to  Jefus  Chrifl. 

Hence  I  conclude,  if  Chrifl  be  a  mere  creature,  that 
Mahomet  has  fpoken  conformably  to  truth  and  prudence; 
to  a  concern  for  the  good  of  mankind,  and  a  zeal  for 


S£CT.   I.  37  CHAP.  IV. 

the  glory  of  Go  J.  While  Jefus — detcfled  ht  the  thour;ht  I 
—  ^hile  Jefus  has  fpoken  imprudently  and  fulfcly  ;  v/liile 
he  has  fpoken  cruelly,  in  regard  to  us  ;  and  impioully, 
in  refpedi:  of  God. — But  if  Jefus  Chriit  be  of  the  fam4> 
cflence  with  his  Father,  then  it  is  evident,  that  v/hea 
he  attributes  to  himfelf  the  names  and  perfections,  the 
works  and  honours  of  God,  he  fpcaks  açjrceably  to  trufi', 
becaufe  he  is  God  :  he  fpeaks  tvi/efy;  for  he  ufcs  the 
fittelt  exprelTions  to  convey  his  own  ideas,  and  to  obtaia 
the  end  intended  :  he  fpeaks  like  one  concerned  for  the 
good  of  manh'ind;  becaufe  he  appears  unwilling  that  we 
fhoald  be  ignorant  of  a  truth  fo  capital  and  fundamental: 
and  he  fpeaks  as  cne  that  is  ^salons  for  ths glory  of  Gcd; 
becaufe  we  cannot  negleiTi  our  duty  to  him,  without 
otfendino  Jehovah.  Confequently,  Mahomet  has  not 
fpoken  conformably  to  truth;  for  he  has  maintained 
that  Jefus  Chril!:  is  not,  v/hat  he  really  is  :  nor  confonant 
to  his  ozun  dejlgn  of  glorifying  God;  becaufe,  by  dif- 
honouring  Chrift,  he  injures  God  himfelf:  nor  yet 
agreeably  to  a  concern  for  th::  happ'inefs  of  men;  feeing  he 
tsiiclies  them  to  bhifpheme  Jefjs  Chrift,  which  expofes 
to  a  divine  curfe. 

To  the  tcnour  of  my  arguing  ftfvera!  objefllons,  T  am 
aware,    will  be  made.     It  will  be  faid,   for  infbnce  j 

*  Mahomet  is  cliargeab'e  with  not  having  formed  fufTici- 

*  ently  high  ideas  of  Jcf^s  Chrilt.'  Be  it  fo  ;  the  injury 
which  religion  has  faflained,  in  that  refpe^fl,  is  very 
inconfiderable  ;  compared  v/ith  the  advantage  it  has 
received  from  him,  by  deftroying  thcfe  extravagantly 
exalted  notions  which  men  had  formed  of  the  Son  of 
Mary.  For  there  is  no  very  great  harm  in  reprefenting 
a  mere  creature  as  lefs  excellent  than  he  really  is  ; 
efpecially,  if  that  creature  be  the  idol  of  mankind; 
which,  on  the  principles  of  oar  opponents,  was  the  cafe 
here.  But  effeclually  to  teach  men,  not  to  confound 
the  creature  wiih  the  Creator,  is  a  ca|>ilal  branch  of 
religious  in(hu<îtian.     -Mahomet  looked  upoaCLiilt  as 


6::CT.  îr  38  CHAP.    IV* 

a  mere  nr^n,  yet  as  a  man  fent  from  God  ;  and  it  is> 
principally,  under  this  view  that  our  adverfaries  would 
have  us  confider  him.  If,  then,  the  author  of  the 
Koran  abolifl-».  idolatry,  and  by  fo  doing  exalt  God,  as 
riuch  as  men  had  before  debafcd  him  ;  he  may  very  well 
be  pardoned  the  fmall  fault,  of  not  fufliciently  honour- 
ing a  mere   man. — *  But   fuppofmg  Mahomet  had  an 

*  advantage,   in   fome  refpe^Sts  ;  this  does  not    hinder 

*  Jefus  Chrid  from  having  a  far  greater,  in  others/  As 
the  two  great  ends  of  religion  are,  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  happinefs  of  men  ;  and  as  Mahomet  has  fucceeded 
better  than  Jefus  Chrift,  in  his  defign  of  glorifying  God 
and  preferring  men  from  idoîùtry  ;  it  follows,  that  he 
ought  to  have  the  preference.  For,  on  the  h)pothefs 
which  v.e  oppofe,  Chrifl:  is  fo  far  from  honouring  God, 
that  he  robs  him  of  his  glory,  and  Mahomet  redores  it 
to    him. — *  Mahomet   only  pretendedy  never    fincerely 

*  defigned,  the  advancement  of  God's  glory/  I  reply, 
according  to  the  m.axini  of  Jefas  Chri(i,  "  teachers  are 
**  to   be    knov/n  by  their    fruits." — *  He   wrought  «0 

*  miracles.''  Granted  :  but  it  is  not  effentiai  to  a  true 
prophet  to  work  miracles,  as  appears  by  the  example  of 
Joh.i  the  Baptift.  Befides,  the  law  teaches  us,  not  to 
judge  of  a  doilrine  by  its  miracles,  but  of  miracles 
by  the  dodrine. — '  Chriil  was  foretold  by  the  ancient 

*  prophets  ;  but  Mahomet  could  never  boall  of  any  fuch 

*  thing.'  But  can  any  fubilantial  reafon  be  afligned, 
why  the  ancient  oracles  ftioald  not  foretel  the  coming 
of  Mahomet,  who  defhoycd  idolatry  in  the  mo'l 
coiifidei  able  part  of  the  world  ;  when  they  foretold  the 
appearance  of  a  man  who  has  been  the  idol  of  the 
Chridians  for  fo  many  ages  ?  Of  a  man  who,  by  his  own 
do^crine,  and  that  of  his  apoftles,  gave  occafion  to  this 
dreadful  idolatry,  to  the  dilnonour  of  God  and  the  ruin 
of  millions  ?  Were  the  coming  and  miniftry  of  a  mere 
man,  that  wouldequal  himfelf  with  the  eternal  Sovereign, 
a  proper  fubjc^^  of  prophetic  elo<iuence  and  tranfporiing 


SECT.   I.  39  CHAP.   IV. 

joy  ?  Had  Tfaiali,  for  inl^ance,  any  reafon  to  lift  up  his 
voice  and  fay  to  Zion  ;  "  /Vrife,  fliine,  for  thy  light  is 
*'  conic,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  rifen  upon  thee  ?" 
* —  The  moraisi  however,  of  Jefus  Chriil,  greatly  exce! 

*  thofe  of  Mahomet.'  But  what  real  excellence  can 
there  be  in  thofe  morals,  which  do  not  prevent  Chrillians 
from  being  guilty  of  blafphemy  and  idolatry  ;  which 
leave  Mahomet  the  honour  of  being  more  zealous  for 
the  glory  of  God,  and  more  careful  of  the  intcreils  of 
men,  than  Jefus  Chvift  ? — *  Mahomet,  it  is  well  known 

*  proiMgated  his  religion  by  crafi  and  force;  but  Chrift 

*  by  upright  and  gentle  methods.'  Granted  :  but  yet  I 
beg  leave  to  afe,  m  whom  are  the  marks  of  a  prcud  and 
worldly  fplrit  moH:  evident  ?  in  one  ihat  is  a  rnan,  likt 
ourfclves,  who  attributes  to  himfelf  the  titles,  perfections, 
and  honours  of  God  j  or  in  a  man  who,  in  the  eflabîirn- 
ment  of  his  religion,  endeavoured  to  exalt  God,  by 
{hewing  that  no  creature  ought  to  be  afTociated  v^ith 
him  ? — *  Mahomet  flatters  the  fordid  appetites  of  men, 

*  by  promifing  them  a  fenTjal  paradife,  replenifhed  v/ith 

*  carnal  delights.'  Not  now  to  inquire,  whether  his 
<iirciples  do  not  fpiritualize  their  Koran,  and  take  the 
grofs  expreflions  in  a  myflical  fsnfe  ;  it  may  be  fuffxient 
here  to  obferve  ;  That  thofe  vices  which  arife  from  the 
fenfual  appetites  are  not  fo  dangerous,  as  thofe  which 
proceed  from  the  pride  and  impiety  of  the  nund.  The 
morals  of  Mahomet,  therefore,  are  kfs  dangerous,  ia 
this  refJDect,  than  the  docirinc  of  Jefus  Chiif':. 

To  conclude,  fo  long  as  it  is  funpofed  that  Jefus  has 
given  cccafion  to  Chridian  idolatry,  and  while  the 
Arabian  prophet  is  confidered  as  having  turned  fo  many 
millions  from  ii  ;  the  advantages  of  the  former  will  be 
very  few  and  fmall,  and  thofe  of  the  Litter  many  and 
great  :  becaufe  there  is  nothing  fo  eflcntial  to  religion,  as 
the  glorifying  of  God;  nor  any  thing  fo  contrary  to  it, 
as  the  pradlice  cf  idolatry. — Thus  it  appears,  that  the 
TRUTH  of  the  Chrillian  religipn,  and  the  Divinity  of 
D  I 


i^^cr.  î, 


40 


CHAP.   IV. 


Jefiis  Chrid,  are  fo  united,  that  we  cannot  cfîablifii  the 
one,  without  maintaining  the  other  ;  nor  give  up  the 
laitfr,  without  renouncing  the  former.  But  this  will 
pppear  with  dill  greater  evidence,  in  th;  further  profecii- 
t-ion  of  mv  fjo'cd. 


41 


SECTION    II. 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the  true  God,  of 
the  fame  eilence  with  his  Father,  the 
Sanhedrim  did  an  act  of  juftice  in  canfing 
him  to  be  put  to  death  ;  and  the  Jews  had 
fufBcient  reafon  to  reje<5l  the  preaching  of 
his  Apoflles,  when  they  called  them  to 
believe  on  him. 


CHAPTER    /. 

Jesus  Christ  is  called  Goa. 


-LA. S  the  opinion  of  thofe  who  believe  Jefus 
Chrift  to  be  a  mere  man,  confecrates  the  Mahometan 
'religion  ;  fo  it  alfo  juftifies  thejev/s  in  the  moft  execrable 
panicide  that  ever  v/as  commiited;  that  is,  the  murder 
OF  Jesus  Christ. 

Fully  to  vindicate  the  condad  of  the  Jews  in  this 
refpe^,  on  the  principles  of  our  oppofers,  we  need  only 
to  ihexv;  That  the  Sanhedrim  had  authority  to  judg€ 
Jefus  Chrid — That  they  had  fufficient  caufe  to  condemn 
him — That  they  had  a  right  to  put  him  to  death — And,^ 
that  the  common  people  had  reafon  to  adhere  to  the 
fentence  of  their  Sanhedrim,  and  to  rejed  the  preaching 
of  the  apoflles,  when  they  called  them  to  believe  in  the 
crucified  Jefus. 

The  authority  of  the  Sanhedrim  to  jur/ge  Jefus  Chri/l., 
is  incontcdiblc  :  it   being  the  proper  bufinefs  of  that 

^3 


SrCT.  Il,  4^  CHAP.   î. 

[;ranJ  court-  of  judicature,  to  take  cognizance  of  all 
carit.il  afiairs,  which  renarded  the  tranquilHry  of  the 
ll:ite,  and  the  prefervation  of  religion. — It  is  equally- 
clear  that  they  had  a  right  to  put  him  to  dcatk^  on  a 
con-vivîlicn  of  blafphcniy  ;  and  to  rejeB  the  preaching  of 
ih:  apijiles^  if  he  was  juftly  put  to  death.  So  that  the 
v^'hole  difficulty  lies  in  this  ;  Whether  they  could  convia 
him  of  llojphcmy.  He  is  no  longer  on  earth.  The 
Jews,  therefore,  cannot  bring  him  again  to  the  bar,  and 
proceed  to  a  new  trial  ;  but  they  may  eafily  know  his 
doflrine,  by  thofe  writings  which  his  difciples  have 
left  ;  for  ail  agree,  that  they  fpake  and  wrote  by  his 
<?rder  and  infpiration. 

Now  it  appears,  from  the  writings  of  the  apcflles, 
that  Jefus  Chrift  was  called  God — That  the  perfedions 
of  God  were  attributed  to  him — That  he  received 
Divine  adoration — That  he  was  equalled  with  God — 
And,  that  the  oracles  of  the  Old  Teflament,  which 
cxprefs  the  glory  of  God,  were  applied  to  him.  But 
can  all  this  honour  be  given  to  a  mere  man  ;  can  all 
thefe  glories  be  afcribed  to  the  mod  exalted  of  mere 
creatures,  without  the  guilt  of  blafphemy  ? — Let  us,  for 
a  moment,  put  ourfelves  in  the  place  of  the  modern 
Jews  ;  and  fee  whether,  fjppofing  the  principles  we 
oppofe  to  be  true,  wc  are  not  obliged  to  perfevere  in 
cur  infidelity.  To  induce  us  to  renounce  it,  wc  mufl 
be  perfaaded,  either,  that  Chrift  was  ntt  called  Goo—- 
that  he  did  net  receive  Divine  adoration — that  he  did 
not  pretend  to  be  equal  with  his  Father — and,  that  he 
did  r.ot  apply,  nor  fufFer  to  be  applied  to  him,  thofe 
cracles  of  the  Old  Teftament  which  exprefs  the  glory 
of  God  : — Or  elfe  we  mult  believe,  that  a  mere  creature 
may  take  upon  him  the  name,  God,  with  thofe  ideas 
Y.^hich  that  augufl  name  conveys,  without  being  guilty 
of  blafphemy. 

T\\ç.  former  is  not  polîîble.  For  Chrifl:  i^  crJled  God, 
and  the  true  God,  in  the  apoftolic  writings.  Thomas, 
:after  the  rçfurredion  of  JefjS;  faid  to  him;  "  My  Lord, 


SECT.  lï.  43  CHAP.   I. 

and  my  God  !"  John  begins  his  gofpel  thus  ;  "  In  the 
**  beginning  was  the  Word — and  the  Word  was  God.*' 
Paul  calls  him,  *'  God  manifefl  in  the  fleih-." — It  is  of 
1)0  importance  whether  tins  name  was  given  to  him  in 
Greek,  or  in  Hebrew  ;  lor,  in  all  languages,  the  term 
figniiles  an  effence  greatly  iupet ior  to  ours.  Bcfides, 
as  the  apodles  apply  to  Chrili  To  many  of  the  ancient 
oracles,  which  fpeak  of  the  Supreme  Being  ;  they  mull 
have  given  to  him  the  names  of  God  in  general — thofc 
names  which  were  of  known,  eftabluhcd  ufe  in  thefacred 
language. 

Here  it  is  worthy  to  be  remarked,  that  the  fevcral 
heads  of  accufation,  which  the  Jews  may  form  againlt 
Chrili,   mutually    fjpport   each    other.      '   We    cannot 

*  doubt,  they  might  fay,  that  he  took  on  him  the  name 
■*  God,  fince  he   received  Divine  worlhip  :   nor  can  we 

*  queftion  but  he  was  worfhipped  in  2i  proper  fenfe^  being 
''  adored  under  a  Divine  character.  We  have  not  the 
•*  Iea(t  reafon  to  doubt,  but  the  fublimc  chara6ter  was 

*  attributed  to  him,  as  it  exprejfts  the  glory  of  GoJ;  feeing 

*  it  was  apj>lied  v/ith  the  idea  of  thofe  perfefiions  which 
■*  are  naturally  figniikd  by  it  :  for  he  is  faid  to  be  equal 
■*  with  God,   after  havnig  divine  pcrfe^Ttions  afcribed   to 

*  him.    We  cannot  but  conclude  that  he  is  really  equalled 

*  with  God  ;  becaufe  thofe  oracles  which  fpeak  of  God 

*  only,  arc  applied  to  him/ — But  thefe  things  deferve  a 
more  particular  confideration. 

Every  one  knows,  that  we  all  naturally  fcruple  to 
take  upon  us  the  name,  God.  This  backwardnefs  mufl 
arife,  either  from  the  reverence  we  have  for  the  Deity, 
'Or  from  fjme  other  pi  inciple.  If  the  latter,  what  is  it  ^. 
\(  ûïQ.  farmery  it  mull  be  either  from  the  regard  we  liavc 
ibr  the  Supreme  Being,  or  from  the  refpeft  we  have  for 
fome  fubordinate  divinity.  It  cannot  be  out  of  refpcifl 
for  a  fubordinate  deity  ;  for  they  who  deny  the  exiftencc 
of  any  fuch  being,  will  not,  dare  not,  call  themfelvcs 
•by  the  name  God.  If  out  of  regard  for  the  Supreme 
^eing,  it  muU  be  becaufs  we  arc  fully  perfuadcd,  that 


szcT.  II.  44  CHAP.  r. 

v/e  fhouid  injure  him,  and  be  guilty  of  a  capital  crime, 
vere  we  to  call  ourfelvcs  by  the  name,  God  ,  or  by  any 
other  name  that  is  peculiar  to  him.  It"  fo,  we  cannot 
but  confider  him  as  an  impious  wretch,  who,  not  being 
God,  dares  to  take  that  name  upon  him 

The  names,  Jesus  Christ,  Saviour,  and  Re- 
deemer OF  THK  WORLD,  are  not  rcore  peculiar  to  th»« 
Son  of  Mary,  than  is  the  name,  Goo,  to  the  Supreme 
Being.  For  as  no  Chrillian  will  give  thofe  names  to 
any  but  the  Son  of  the  Virgin  ;  fo  no  Jew  dares  to  apply 
the  name,  God.  to  any  but  the  Great  Supreme.  And 
as  Chrifiians  no  fooner  hear  this  gracious  and  glorious 
name,  Jesus  Christ,  than  they  tJiink  of  Him  that 
\vas  conceived  in  the  womb  of  Mary  ;  fo  tlie  adorable 
name,  God,  is  no  fooner  pronounced  among  the  Jews, 
than  they  hare  an  idea  of  Him  that  created  heaven  and 
earth;  except  there  be  fome  intimation  given  of  its 
being  ufcd  in  an  improper  fenfe.  As,  therefore,  a  man 
who  ihouid  now  call  himfelf  Jesus  Christ,  and  defirt 
to  be  treated  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  would  be 
jufliy  condem.ned  of  horrid  impiety;  fb,  if  Jefus  took 
upon  him  the  name,  God,  without  being  God,  th^ 
Jews  might  judly  accufe,  condemn,  and  punifti  him  for 
blafphemy. 

It  will  not  avail  to  fay,  *  Though  Jefus  took  upon 

*  him  the  name,  God  ;  yet  he  gave  fufficient  notice  that 

*  he  was  not  God.'  For  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
gave  any  notice  of  it  ;  at  lealt,  not  JuJ/lcleTit  notice. 
The  contrary  is  evident  from  his  language  and  condud. 
But,  if  he  be  not  God,  why  does  he  take  a  name 
which  had  been  long  confecrated  to  that  Supreme 
Being  I  If  he  be  not  God,  wliy  does  he  permit  men 
to  adore  him  ?  adoration  being  due  to  God  only. — 
Befides,  as  it  would  be  abfurdly  impious  for  a  man 
ivho  confefTes,  that  he  is  not  Jefus  Chrift,  to  take  upon 
him  the  names  and  receive  the  honours  which  are  due 
to  that  Divine  Saviour  only;  fo  it  is  a  compound  of 
ttbfurdity  and  blafphemy  for  one  who  is  not  Gt>d,  xo 


SIECT.    ïî.  45  CHAP.  I. 

take  upon  hirn  the  names  and  attribntes  of  God  ;  and, 
by  receiving  adoration,  to  ufurp  the  honours  which  are 
due  to  none  but  God. 

If  Mofes,  when  returning  from  the  mount  with  his 
face  fhining,  by  reafon  of  his  intimate  converfe  with 
Jehovah,  had  prefumed  to  call  himfelf  God;  to 
attribute  to  himfelf  Divine  perfei5lions  ;  and  to  demand 
the  adoration  of  the  people,  though  he  was  knowa  to 
be  a  mere  man  ;  the  chofen  tribes  would  have  had  fufhcicnt 
ground  to  reject,  condemn,  and  punifn  him  as  afeducer, 
noLwithftanding  the  wonderful  miracles  that  were 
performed  by  him,  For,  by  fuch  a  conduct,  he  would 
have  violated  the  firft  command  of  the  law,  at  the  very 
time  in  which  it  was  given.  Jehovah  had  faid,  "  Thou 
**"  {halt  have  no  other  gods  before  mc  ;"  and  yet  he 
would  have  put  himf«lf  in  the  place  of  God. — If,  then, 
the  ancient  Ifraelites  would  have  done  well  to  rejeâ: 
Mofes,  in  the  cafe  fuppofed  ;  the  Sanhedrim  had  reafon 
to  rejed  the  pretenfions  of  Jtfus  Chrift,  and  to  condemn 
hlni  for  blifphemy,  when  he  cither  required,  or 
permitted.  Divine  honours  to  be  addrcffed  to  him. 
For  when  the  names  and  glory  of  God  are  ufurped, 
neither  miracles  *  nor  the  dignity  of  the  perfon  accufed, 
can,  in  the  leaft,  vindicate  his  conduct.  Not  miracles: 
becaufj  they  cannot  authorize  blafphemy.  Nay,  blaf- 
phemy  is  a  fufficient  ground  of  utterly  rejcifling  thofe 
works,  however  wonderful,  which  are  wrought  in 
favour  of  it.  Not  i.bâ  dignity  of  ths  perfon:  becaufe 
robbing  God  of  his  glory  is  a  crime,  by  (o  much  the 
more  heinous,  by  how  much  the  more  excellent  the 
perfon  is  that  commits  the  horrid  a6t. 

Should  the  head  of  a  family,  for  inflance,  call 
himfelf  king  ;  under  a  pretence  that  he  poffelTes  autho- 
rity over  his  children  :  fhould  he  frequently  fo  call 
himfelf,  without  any  reftritflion,  or   explanation,    and 

*   Admitting,  for  the  fake  of  argument;  thnt  fuch  an  ufurfc*- 

could  pt-rfornj  rcul  miriicles. 


SECT.  II.  46  CHAP.  I. 

alfo  require  to  be  honoured  as  a  king;  he  would  involve 
himfelf  in  much  guilt.  Bat  the  crime  would  be  mere 
aggravated,  if  a  magiflrate  (hould  ufurp  the  name  aod 
the  honours  of  majefty,  among  his  fellow-citizens  ; 
becaufe  it  would  be  of  more  dangerous  confequence  to 
the  ilate.  And  it  would  be  (iill  greater,  if  the  governor 
of  a  province  were  to  do  fo  ;  and  greater  yet,  in 
proportion  to  the  dignity  of  the  guilty  perfon. — Thus 
the  name,  God,  being,  by  a  mod  ancient  and  holy  ufe, 
appropriated  to  Him  who  made  heaven  and  earth  ;  the 
application  of  it  to  any  other  is  fo  far  from  being 
juftified,  by  the  excellence  of  the  creature  who  dares 
to  afTamc  it,  that  he  is,  on  that  very  account,  fo  much 
the  more  guilty  of  impiety  and  blafphemy. 

The  name,  God,  in  our  language,  and  0i«:  in  Greek, 
anfwcr  thofe  auguft  and  venerable  names  which  the 
Supreme  Being  appropriates  to  himfelf,  in  the  Old 
Teftament:  names  which  ought  to  be  facred  to  Him, 
becaufe  he  took  them  on  himfelf,  and  becaufe  they 
were  to  didinguilli  Him  from  all  his  creatures.  One  of 
them  (ignifies,  He  that  is  sufficient;  to  denote, 
that  all  other  beings  have  need  of  God,  but  that  He 
has  no  need  of  them.  Another  fignifies,  I  am  ;  or, 
I  AM  THAT  I  am;  to  indicate,  that  God  is  felf-exifient 
and  independent,  unchangeable  and  eternal.  I  omit 
feveral  others,  which  might  be  mentioned  ;  but  it  may 
be  cbferved  of  them  in  general,  that  they  exprefs  fuch 
an  eminence  of  perfection  and  glory,  as  cannot  agree 
to  any  but  the  mod  High. 

In  the  language  of  the  New  Teftament,  and  in  that 
of  the  Septuagint,  are  two  names,  0s«^,  and  KCptog  ; 
intended  to  exprefs  v.hat  is  fgnificd  by  the  various 
charafrers  which  our  Maker  affumcs,  in  the  Hebrew 
oracles.  And,  certainly,  we  ought  not  to  iniagine  tliat 
the  names,  which  God  hath  fet  apart  for  himfelf  in  the 
Nev/  Teftament,  are  lefs  facred,  or  lefs  proper  to  him, 
than  thofe  by  which  he  revealed  himfelf  in  the  Old. 
For  if  it  was  then  iiecefU'.ry,  that  God  fnould  be  diltin- 


SECT.  ir.  47  CHAP.  I. 

guhlied  from  ?M  his  creatures  ;  and  if,  on  that  account^ 
he  took  on  hiiii  fucb  names  as  exprefs  his  elleniial  glory  ; 
there  mud  be  the  fame  propriety,  and  an  equal  neceflity, 
now.  Nay,  it  is  more  nece-Tary  now,  that  the  grand, 
the  infinite  di(lin6tion  betv/ecn  God  and  his  nobleft: 
creatures  fliould  be  difpbyed  and  aflerted  ;  becaufe  this 
is  the  time,  in  which  it  was  foretold,  that  "  God  alone 
^^finuld be  exaked.^' — So  that,  as  there  v/ould  have  been 
evident  and  abundant  reafon,  to  condemn  and  punidi  a 
man  for  biafpiiemy,  who,  under  the  Old  Tc(tament, 
fliould  have  ufjrped  the  name  Jehovah,  with  the  ado- 
ration due  to  him  v*'ho  calls  that  name  his  own  ;  fo 
nothing  can  be  more  apparent  than  llîs  impiety  of  him, 
who  fliculd  now  ufurp  the  name,  God,  and  receive  that 
%yorniip  which  has  been  always  paid  to  the  mod  High 
only,  under  that  charader. 

When  Herod,  making  an  oration  to  the  people,  was 
fmitten  by  divine  vengeance,  for  receiving  this  impi- 
ous acclamation,  "  It  is  the  voice  of  a  god,  and  not 
^*  of  a  man  !''  neither  the  people,  nor  he,  could  confider 
it  as  literally  true.  Herod,  elated  as  he  v.as,  did  not 
believe  himfcif  to  be  God  ;  nor  could  the  multitude 
fuppofe  that  their  king  was  ali  on  a  fudden  become  the 
Supreme  Being  ;  yet  his  impiety  met  with  exemplary 
puniiliment — If  Jefus  Chrifl:,  therefore,  be  a  mere  man, 
he  cannot  be  acquitted  from  a  charge  of  blafphcmy, 
by  pleading  ;  *  That  he  declared  himfelf  to  be  a  man, 

*  and  that  he  acknowledged  his  Father  to  be  greater 

*  than  he.'  Becaufe  a  man  may  be  guilty  of  horrid 
impiety,  in  receiving  Divine  honours,  without  either 
believing  or  declaring,  that  he  is  the  true  God  ;  as  appears 
by  the  example  of  Herod.  For  he  v;ho  ufurps  the  glory 
of  God,  though  it  be  but  in  part,  is  guilty  of  blafphemy  ; 
and  he  who  afcribes  it  to  an  ufurper,  is  guilty  of  idolatry. 

Have  not  the  Jews,  then,  furncient  reafon  to  abide  by 
the  fentence  of  their  Sanhedrim,  and,  on  the  principles 
of  our  adverfaries,  to  maintain  ;  That  Jefus  Chriil  was 
juftly  condemned  and  puttodeatb,  having  been  convided 


SECT.  II.  4%  CI-IAP.   I, 

of  blafphemy  ?  And  what  'can  be  faid  in  vindication 
cf  our  Mefïïah  ?  It  may,  perhaps,  be  faid  ;  *  Tliere  is  a 
«  manifcfl:  difference  beiv/een  the  condud  of  Herod,  and 
*  that  of  Jefi-is  Chrilt.      The  former  received   divine 

<  honours  out  of  pride,  and  contrary  to  the  v.'ill  of  God  : 

<  but  the  latter  calls  himfelf  God,  and  receives  adoration, 

<  only  becaufe  the  true  God  will  have  it  fo/ — But 
v/hi^ere,  and  by  whom,  has  God  declared  his  will,  that 
Ch.rifi:  fhould  bear  his  name,  and  receive  his  worfliip  I 
If  there  be  any  fuch  revelation,  it  mufi  have  been  made, 
either  by  the  prophets  ;  or  by  his  Son  ;  cr  by  the 
apolilcs.  If  they  fay,  By  his  Son;  the  Jews  will 
immediately  afl<,  W^'hether  all  the  feducers  in  the  world 
do  not  pretend  co  divine  authority,  for  what  they  fay 
and  do  ?  They  all  affirm,  that  the  names  they  bear,  the 
works  they  perform,  and  the  honours  they  receive,  are 
by  the  commarid  of  God  ;  yet  they  are  eafily  convidled 
of  falfehood,  and  their  wonderful  works,  if  they  perform 
any,  are  proved  to  be  impoflure  ;  becaufe  they  ufurp 
the  charadtcrs  and  glory  of  God. — If,  by  the  apcjiles  ; 
they  are  no  lefs  embarrafied.  For  they  who  rejedt 
Chrift,  condemn  his  apoflles  ;  condemn  them  of  blaf- 
phemy, for  afcribing  the  glory  of  God  to  a  crucified 
man. — If,  therefore,  fuch  a  revelation  have  been  made, 
it  was  by  fhc prophets.  But  if  fo,  Chrifl  is  the  true  God. 
For  all  thofe  oracles  which  reprefcnt  the  Mefliah  as 
God,  fpeak  of  him  as  the  true  Gcd.  Nothing  can 
be  more  exprefs  than  that  command  which  is  given  to 
"  all  the  angels  to  worfliip  him  ;"  nor  is  any  thing  more 
certain,  than  that  it  is  the  true  God  cf  whom  the  words 
are  fpoken.  And  as  the  prophets  have  fo  exprefsly  and 
repeatedly  declared,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  it  is  evident  that  he  of 
wlicm  they  fpeak  muft  be  the  true,  the  eternal  God. 

That  fublirae  Being  whom  the  prophets  foretel,  as 
Goiv/ing  into  the  world  ;  as  fending  his  mcflenger  before 
iiim  :  as  commanding  his  fervants  to  "  fay  to  the  cities, 
<»  of  Judah,  behold   your  God!"  is  the   Crta'.or   of 


SECT.   II.  49  CHAP.   I. 

heaven  and  earth.  If  not,  there  mufl  be  livo  gods,  of 
whom  they  fj^/eak  :  but  Mofes  and  the  prophets  unite  in 
niTerting,  and  infift  upon  it,  as  a  principle  eficntial  to 
that  religion  which  they  taught  and  efUblilhed,  tha 
there  is  but  one  God.  Hear  how  Ifiiah  declares  the 
Uiiity  and  pubHihes  the  n:imcs  of  God.      *  Thus  faiih 

*  ihe  Lord  the  King  of  Ifrael,  and  his  Redeemer,  the 

*  Lord  of  hosts  ;  I  am  the  Firf^,  and  I  am  the  Lali, 

*  and  befides  me  there  is  no  God.'  According  to  thefs 
important  and  fublime  exprefiîons,  He  only  is  to  be 
called  God,  wliofe  names  are,  Jehovah,  t};e  Re- 
DEEMtR  OF  Israel,  the  Lord  of  kcsts,  the 
First  and  the  Last. — Again;    *  î  am  the  Lord, 

*  and  there  is  nonk  else  ;  there  is  sc  God  befides  me 

*  — That  they  may  knov/,  from  the  rii:ng  of  the  fun  and 

*  from  the  wefl,  that  there  is  none  blsides  me  :   I  am 

*  the  Lord  and  there  is  none  else,   1  form  the  light, 

*  and  create  darknefs  ;   I  make  peace,  and  create  evil  ; 

*  I  the  Lord  do  all  thefe  things — There  is  no  God 

*  £LSE  befide  me;  a  juil  God  and  a  Saviour,  there  is 

*  NONE   pEsiDE   M£ — I  am  God,  and  there  is  none 

*  ELSE.' — See,  in  what  a  reiterated  manner  the  prophet 

*  afferts  the  important  truth  !  .  Hear,  with  what  vehe- 
mence of  fpirit  and  force  of  language,  he  mi.intains  the 
fupreme  dignity  of  Jehovah's  charader,  in  oppofiiion 
to  all  that  are  called  god,  who  made  net  the;  heavens 
and  the  earth,  tl^.e  liglit  and  the  darkucfs  !  Of  this  liie 
Jews   cannot   be   ignorant.     *  On   this    principle,    they 

*  will   fay,   our   fathers   condemned  your  Mclluih,   He 

*  called  himfelf  God,    and  vv'c  know  there  is   but  one 

*  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  ear:h.  Your  MefLah, 

*  not  being    the  Former  of  all  things,    could    not   be 

*  God  ;  he  was,  therefore,  guilty    of   blafphemy    ard 

*  v\^orthy  of  death.' 

How,  then,  fhall  v/e  vindicate  the  conduâ  of  Chiifr, 

if  we  fuppofe  him  to  be  a  mere  man,  and  yet  allow  that 

he  called    himfelf  God?     Shall  we  fay,  that  he  has 

liothing  of  God  but  the  na^\e?     But  if  fo,   any  other 

E 


5£CT.   II.  50  CHAP.  I. 

man  nii^ht  be  Co  called  as  well  as  he— Shall  we  afiert 
that  he  is  a  metaphorical  God  ;  that  h*^  is  fo  called  in  the 
fenfe  in  which  kings  bear  the  name  ?  But  the  contrary 
appears,  by  his  receiving  adoration.  When  we  call  a 
rjan  who  is  exceedingly  brave,  King  of  the  courageous  ; 
we  do  not  mean  to  al'cribe  any  royalty  to  him.  Befides, 
when  we  attribute  any  thing  to  a  perfon  metaphorically, 
we  do  not  ufe  the  name  fimply,  without  any  limitation 
or  explanation. — Shall  wc  fay,  then,  that  Chrilt  is  a 
fubordinatc  God  ?  But  the  Scriptures,  by  excluding  a 
plurality  of  gods,  exclude  alfo  every  fubordinate  god  : 
for  the}'  utterly  rejed  every  being,  as  unworthy  to  be 
called  God,  who  is  not  the  Creator  of  all  things. — 
When  the  Supreme  Lawgiver  fays,  "  Thou  fhalt  have 
*'  no  other  gods  before  me  ;"  does  he  mean  to  exclude 
a//perfons  and  a/7  things  that  are  not  God,  or  onlyfomeT 
If  fome  only,  then  the  Ifraelites  were  allowed  to  have 
other  gods  before  him;  provided  they  were  but  of  the 
right  fort.  But  if  «//,  ail  ent^relyj  then  the  Jev/s  did 
right  in  accufing  Chrifl;  of  blafphemy,  vv'hen  he  propofed 
himfelf,  or  was  preached  to  them  as  a  fubordinate  god. 
I  may,  perhaps,  be  told,  *  When  the  Supreme  Law- 

*  giver  faid,  '•'  Thou  (liait  have  no  other  gods  before  me;'* 

*  he  meant  to  exclude  the  jfilfe  gods  of  the  heathen.' 
But  whatever  gods  he  intended,  they  are  excluded  by 
a  general  proportion  ;  which  utterly  forbids  all  fuch 
objecls  of  worfhip  as  are  not  the  true  God.  The  Law- 
giver docs  not  abhor  the  idols  of  the  Heathen,  becaufe 
they  are  the  idols  of  the  Heathen;  but  becaufe  they  are 
not  the  TRUE  God,  and  yet  are  worfnippcd,  Suppofe 
it  were  not  wood,  or  ftone,  but  a  man,  or  an  angel  ; 
fo  foon  as  you  adore  him,  he  becomes  a  Heathen  idol  : 
otherwlfe,  one  that  worfhips  an  angel  could  not  be 
convicted  of  idolatr3-,  by  the  firft  command.  It  is,  then, 
a  general  prohibition,  and  abfolutely  forbids  the  worfhip 
of  any  one  befides  the  Supreme  Being  ;  confequently, 
it  mufl  entirely  exclude  all  fubordinate  gods. — Nor  can 
the  meaning  be,  to  exclude  a  plurality  oi fupreme  gods. 


SECT.  II.  51  CKAl'.   1. 

For  if  fo,  of  all  the  Heathen  deities,  the  wcrfhip  of 
none  but  their  Jupiter  would  be  condemned,  by  tl)is 
command.  Befides,  why  fliould  it  condemn  a  cnum 
that  never  did,  and,  according  to  all  probability,  never 
will  exift  ?  for  none  ever  yet  worfnip'^cd  iii)j  Jupretne 
gods. 

Were  not  the  Jews  in  tJie  right,  then,  vhcn  thev 
complained  that  Jefus,  being  a  niere  man,  made  himlclf 
God  ?  Or,  can  we  blame  their  conduvfr,  unlefs  wc 
confider  Chrid  as  of  the  fame  cfTence  with  Him  who 
created  the  univerfe  ?  They  affixed  the  idea  of  the 
Supreme  Being  to  the  name  G  on  ;  having  been  taught, 
by  the  prop>hets,  that  there  is  but  cue  God,  and  that  ;!il 
other  deiiies  Ihall  perifîi  from  the  earth.  So  that  if  iher 
were  under  a  miiUke,  in  tills  refpecc,  they  were  led 
into  it  by  their  prophets  ;  but  if  not,  they  were  obligee, 
on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  to  condemn  Jefus 
for  ufurping  the  names  and  honours  of  God. — For  it 
ihould  be  obferved,  that  names  do  not  naturally  exprefs 
thefe  ideas  rather  than  thofe  ;  their  figniiication  being 
fixed,  either  by  God  himfelf,  fi^caking  in  the  Scripuies  ^ 
or  by  general  confent  and  cufiiom.  We  are  not,  there- 
fore, to  confider  the  biters  v/hich  compjfe  the  name 
God,  in  Englilh  ;  0f*ç,inGreck;  jKHGVAH,inHebrc\v  ; 
as  having  any  thing  facred,  or  peculiarly  fignilicant,  in 
them  ;  bat  v/c  mufh  examine  what  icL'as  are  afHxed  to 
thefe  names.  Now  thefe  ideas  arc  not  fuch  as  any 
particular  perfon  may  pleafe  to  f.x  upon  them;  but 
thofe  which  have  been,  and  are  annexed  to  them,  by 
the  unerring  Spirit,  in  the  Bible  ;  and  by  the  comnioa 
confent  of  mankind. — Were  a  Count  of  an  empire,  for 
inftance,  to  aflame  the  title  of  Emperor;  he  would,  no 
doubt,  difpleafe  the  princes  ;  and  it  would  be  but  a  poor 
apology  to  fay,  *  That  by  the  exalted  title,  he  meant 
*  no  more  than  a  fovereign  prince  in  his  ov.n  country.* 
He  would  foon  be  informed,  that  the  common  confent 
of  men,  not  his  particular  fancy,  fettles  the  lignification 
of  the  te^-m.  In  like  manner,  it  would  be  to  no  purpofe 
£  2 


^.TCT,  II.  5£  CHAP.   !• 

for  Chridians  to  /hy  ;  Though  Jefas  a/Tumed  the  nan-.e 
God  ;  yet  lie  did  not  apply  it  to  himfelf  in  that  fenfe 
in  vhich  it  is  coninrionly  ufed  :  for  the  que(tion  is  not. 
What  he  underf^ood  by  it  ;  but,  What  men  ou^ht  to 
underfland  by  it,  when  it  is  given  to  him. 

If,  therefore,  we  v.'ould  know  what  Jefus  meant,  by 
Calling  himfelf  God;  or  what  his  difciplcs  intended, 
by  giving  him  that  name  ;  we  mult  inquire  what  was 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  term,  in  the  language  of 
men  in  genera),  or  in  thqt  of  the  Jews,  or  of  the  prophets, 
or  of  God  hin-jfcif.  If  the  name  agree  to  Chrilt,  as  \ 
mere  mar,  Jet  our  adverfarics  inform  us  which  of  thefe 
they  follow.  It  is  not  agreeable  to  the  manner  of 
fpeaking  amorg  men  /'«  general  ;  for  it  never  was  their 
cufiom  to  call  a  mere  man  by  the  nam.e  God.  Much  kfs 
.'S  it  conformable  to  the  current  language  of  &i<t  Jews  ; 
ror  to  that  of  the  prophets  ;  nor  to  that  of  God,  The 
Jews  ufed  to  affix,  to  that  facred  name,  the  idea  of  the 
Great  Supreme  ;  the  idea  of  him  who  formed  the 
univerfe  :  for  they  knew  of  no  other  God.  The  fame 
is  evident  concerning  the  prophets  who  had  taught  them 
fo  to  believe  and  fo  to  fpeak  ;  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
v.ho  had  fo  taught  the  prophets. 


hLCTo  li.  SS  CHAP;  II. 

CHAPrER    IL 

Tiie  argument  continued. 


JL  HE  J  ews,  who  lived  in  the  apoflolic  times, 
ought  not  to  be  blamed  for  fpeaking  as  God  and  the 
prophets  had  taught  them.  They  cannot  be  juftly 
biained  for  not  being  able  to  guefs,  that  the  name  Goi> 
had  a  (ignincation  which  had  not  been  heard  of  till  that 
time  ;  a  figniiicaiion  which  fjlly  acquitted  a  man  who, 
v/ithout  it,  would  have  been  convicted  of  biafj  hemy. 
Much  lefs  are  the  modern  Jews  to  be  ccnfured  for 
fpeaicing,  as  their  forefathers  tauoht  them.  Lut  let  us 
confider  the  various  ways,  in  which  the  members  of  the 
ancient  fynagogue  were  instructed  by  their  j?rophets,  iti 
this  refpecl. 

The  prophets  frequently  reminded  them  of  thisprecept; 
**  Thou  (halt  have  no  other  gods  before  me  ;"  without 
ever  fubjoining  the  leafi:  c^ualiiication,  or  redriclion,  by 
which  they  might  learn,  that  this  command  was  not 
general  and  obligatory  in  all  ages  and  places.  Were 
the  Jews,  then,  obliged  to  .believe,  without  pny  manner 
of  notice,  that  a  command  fo  inviolable  till  th?n,  had 
loft  its  force  in  the  tim.e  of  Jef.is  Chriil  ? 

They  conftantly  oppofe  that  God  who  ir.ede  all 
things,  to  every  created  god.  As  they  affert  the  unity 
,  of  God,  with  great  frequency  and  great  fclemnity  ;  fo 
they  diftinguiih  him  by  his  charafter,  *'  He  made  th.e 
*'  heavens  and  the  earth."  Nay,  they  declare  that 
**  the  gods  who  made  not  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
**  fhall  perifh  from  under  the  heavens.''  The  Jews 
could  not  but  confider  this  ancnion,  as  general;  and 
as  teaching  them,  that  no  one  ought  to  be  acknowledged 
as  God,  but  him  that  created  the  world  and  is  unchan^e- 
,iLble. 


b::cT.  II.  54  cKAp.  ir. 

The  prophets  taught,  that  God  cannot  be  reprefenud 
by  any  picture,  or  image  ;  becaufe  there  \i  nothing  in 
the  world  fit  to  reprefent  him.  "  To  whom,'*  or  to 
wh?.r,  fays  God,  "  will  ye  liken  me  ?''  By  which  the 
Jews  were  informed,  that  nothing  which  might  be 
reprefented  on  canvafs,  or  in  ftatuary,  ought  to  be 
a-jknowlcdged  as  God.  Confequently,  they  muft  con- 
clude, that  a  mere  man  was  very  far  from  defervirg  to 
be  called  God. 

The  name  Jehovah,  with  all  other  Divine  titles  and 
characlers  v.hich  our  Maker  afTumes  in  the  Scripture, 
are  names  of  djftincl'wn  ;  and  were  defîgned  to  exalt 
him  far  above  all  creatures.  "  I  am  Jehovah,  that  ij 
"  my  name.  There  is  no  God  befides  me.  Ye  fhall 
**  fwear  by  my  name.  Whofoever  fweareth  upon  the 
"  earth,  ihall  fwear  by  the  God  of  truth."  Now  îhefç 
characters  and  claims  Vv'ere  defigned  to  diftinguiih  God, 
cither  from  all  his  creatures,  or  only  from  fome  of 
them.  If  the  latter ^  in  vain  does  He  fay  ;  "  There  is  no 
"  Ggd  befides  me."  Becaufe  it  might  be  anfwered. 
Though  that  be  thy  name,  it  does  net  dilHnguilTi  thee 
from  every  creature  :  fcr  there  is,  or  there  will  be  one, 
that  fliall  bear  it  with  thee.  If  the  former^  then  whoever 
calls  himfelf  God,  difowns  the  condition  of  a  creature  ; 
r.nd,  confequently,  if  Jefus  Chrid  affumed  that  name,  or 
any  other  exprefllve  of  the  fame  glory,  the  Jews  could 
not  but  accufe  him  of  blafphemy. 

The  prophets  abundantly  affert  the  unity  of  God. 
Nor  can  we  confider  their  extraordinary  care,  in  this 
refpe^H:,  as  owing  to  any  thing,  but  the  danger  there  was 
of  men  falling  into  idolatry  ;  by  acknowledging,  as  God, 
one  that  was  not  Jehovah.  But  were  the  days  of  the 
prophets  the  only  time  in  which  men  were  in  any  fuch. 
danger  ?  Were  they  not  expofcd  to  the  fame  evil,  when 
the  Sanhedrim  judged  Jefus  Chrift  ?  But  why  do  I  afk 
fuch  queflions  ?  for,  if  we  believe  our  adverfaries,  the 
event  has  proved,  that  it  was  poifible  for  men,  with  the 
writings  of  the   prophets   in  their  hands,  to  become 


3ECT.  II.  SS  CHAP.   ir. 

idolaters  ;  by  placing  a  creature,  honoured  with  the 
name  of  God,  on  the  throne  of  the  Deity. — The  Jews, 
then,  were  obHged  to  be  jealous  for  the  glory  of  God, 
as  the  prophets  had  been  in  the  times  of  their  fathers. 
For  they  might  eafily  forcfee,  that  if  a  mere  man  were 
fuffered  to  call  himfelf  God,  he  would  focn  be  put  in 
i/je  place  of  God  ;  and  the  event  has  veriiicd  fuch  an 
apprehenfion.  As  the  prophets,  therefore,  had  for  fo 
many  ages  conflantly  declared,  that  there  is  but  ons 
objedl,  to  whom  the  name  God  belongs,  in  order  to 
guard  the  people  againil  idolatry  ;  the  fame  reafon 
required  the  Jews  to  wiihiland  a  man,  who  dared  to 
affiime  the  names  and  titles  of  Gcd. 

Jehovali,  by  the  prophets,  declares,  "  I  will  not  give 
*'  my  glory  to  another,  nor  my  praife  to  graven  images." 
The  Jews,  therefore,  had  reafon  to  conclude,  that  He 
had  not  given  his  glory  to  Jefus  Chrift.  For  either 
this  propofition  is  general;  and  fo  fignifies,  that  God 
never  gives  his  glory  to  any  one  :  or  it  is  particular,  and 
imports,  that  at  fome  times,  and  on  certain  occafions, 
he  does  give  his  glory  to  anotiier.  If  the  latter^  the 
affertion  is  tiifiing  and  the  reafoning  vain.  For  the 
meaning  mult  be,  God  gives  not  his  glory  to  another, 
on  fome  occafions,  though  he  does  it  on  olhers,  There<^ 
fore,  he  will  not  give  his  praife  to  graven  images.  If 
the  formery  as  it  muft  undoubtedly  be,  the  Jews  were 
obliged  to  conclude,  that  God  had  not  given  his  glory  to 
Jefus  Chriit  ;  and  confequently,  he  could  not,  without 
manifefl  impiety,  eitlier  inved  himfelf  with  the  titles  of 
God,  or  pretend  to  Divine  honours. 

The  prophets  have  fo  great  a  refpe(ft  for  the  names 
of  God,  that;  they  carefully  avoid  taking  any  metaphors 
from  them  ;  which  is  a  very  remarkable  difference 
between  human  and  Divine  language.  The  former^ 
being  that  of  men  who  do  not  fufîiciently  reverence  the 
Deity,  abounds  with  metaphors  taken  from  God. 
Almod  every  thing  is  reprefented,  by  one  or  another, 
as  divine,  adorable,    infinite,     Incenfe   and   facriftce, 


SECT.  II.  56  CHAP.  II. 

dedication  and  devotion,  with  many  otiur  expreillons 
that  are  t^ken  from  the  wonliip  of  God,  co(l  us  nothing, 
and  ave  freq  lently  ufed.  But  tliey  are  banilhed  from 
the  language  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  who,  fpeaking  of  God 
as  God,  and  of  a  creature  as  a  creature,  avoids  thofe 
metaphors  which  would  feem  to  infringe  on  the  rights, 
or  the  honours,  of  the  Great  Supreme  ;  or  as  might 
leem  to  elevate  the  creature  above  a  {late  of  dependence. 
^Vh^n  the  Holy  Spirit  perfonifies  death,  he  docs  not 
call  him  the  god,  but  tlie  "  king  of  terrors."  And 
though  the  pfilmiil:,  fpeaking  of  the  rulers  of  this  world, 
fays,  "  Ye  are  gods  ;"  yet  he  immediately  adds,  *'  but 
**  ye  fliall  die  like  men."  The  figurative  application, 
therefore,  of  the  adorable  name,  in  this  paflage,  cannot 
pofiibly  injure  the  glory  of  God  ;  becaufe  it  is  given 
to  princes  for  no  other  reafon,  but  to  form  an  antithefis 
to  humble  them.  *'  Ye  are  gods — but  ye  fliall  die  Hke 
*'  men." — If,  then,  the  reverence  which  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Tedament  had  for  the  proper  rames  of  God, 
be  fo  great  ;  and  if  the  fame  reverential  regard  be 
found  in  the  penmen  of  the  New  Teflament  ;  who, 
Tvhen  fpeaking  of  a  creature,  do  not  fetch  their  metaphors 
from  the  attributes  of  God,  as  the  Heathen  authore 
did,  and  as  is  common  at  this  day;  ought  we  to  cenfure 
ihe  Jews  of  an  cxcelTive  tendernefs,  who  could  not 
fuffer  the  name  God  to  be  given  to  a  mere  man,  and 
«iven  to  him  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as  requires  us  to  worfhip 
liim  ?  For,  either  the  name  God,  expreiTes  îhe  glory 
of  the  Creaior^  or  th'at  of  the  crealurey  or  one  that  is 
ccmmon  to  both.  It  cannot  be  a  glory  common  to  both; 
for  if  it  were,  the  prophets  could  not  have  fo  often 
declared,  that  there  is  but  cneGoà:  befidcs,  every 
one  of  us  might  call  hlmfelf  by  the  adorable  name, 
without  any  fcruple.  Nor  can  it  be  the  glory  of  the 
creature;  for  ho  man  ever  could  fuppofe  it.  It  mull, 
therefore,  be  the  glory  of  the  Creator;  a  glory  peculiar 
to  him.     And  if  fo,  the  Jews  could  not  but  acciife 


SECT.  II.  S7  CHAP,  n, 

Jefas  of  blafphemy  ;  who,  though  a  mere  man,  a/Tumed 
a  name  which  exprefTcs  the  Creator's  glory. 

Once  more  :  The  prophets  have  two  principal  ends 
in  view,  when  they  proclaim  the  chara(flers,  perfections, 
and  honours  of  the  Supreme  Being.  The  one  is,  to 
glorify  God,  by  exalting  him  far  above  all  creatures  ; 
the  other,  to  fave  vmnh'tndy  by  preferring  them  from 
idolatry,  and  by  infirading  them  in  the  knowledge  and 
worfhip  of  the  true  God.  But  thefe  high  deligns  are 
oppofed,  are  deftroyed,  as  to  multitudes,  if  the  Jews 
permit  à  mere  man  to  alTume  the  names  of  God.  For, 
as  names  are  given  to  perfons  and  things,  with  a  defign 
to  make  them  known,  and  to  diftinguifh  one  from 
another;  if  a  mere  man  take  upon  him  the  names  of 
God,  he  will,  in  fanie  degree  at  lead:,  be  confounded 
with  him  :  and  thus  the  defign  of  the  prophets  îo  glorify 
Gody  by  exalting  him  far  above  all  other  beings,  is 
oppofed.  For  as  God  glorifies  hinitfclf,  by  laying  a 
peculiar  claim  to  fuch  charadlers  as  do  not,  as  cannot, 
agree  to  a  mere  creature  ;  fo  the  creature  impicufly 
dilhonours  God,  by  afluming  thofe  naines  which  are 
appropriated  to  him. — The  other  great  end  is  no  lefs 
oppofed,  by  an  ufurpation  of  God's  names.  For  when 
Jefus  calls  himfelf  God,  he  muft  apply  the  name,  either 
witbi  or  ivhhout  an  idea.  If  the  latter^  he  ads 
abfurdly.  li  û\q  fonmry  it  mud  be  either  the  fame 
which  men  in  cnmmon  ailix  to  it  ;  or  a  particular  one  of 
his  own.  If  the  fame  which  manhlnd  in  general  annex 
to  the  term,  it  mull  be  that  of  the  Supreme  Being  ; 
and.  confequently,  he  leads  men  directly  into  idolatry. 
If  it  be  a  particular  one  of  his  own,  he  lays  a  fnare  for 
immortal  fouls  ;  for  he  takes  a  diredl  flep  to  lead  men 
into  error,  from  error  to  idolatry,  and  from  idolatry 
to  damnation.  He  renders  language  a  commerce  of 
deceit  and  mifchief;  whereas,  by  its  natural  appointment, 
it  ought  ever  to  be  an  intercourfe  of  truth  and  benefit?. 
Befides,  the  fignification  of  the  name,  God,  not 
depending  on  the  caprice  of  any  particular  perfon  ;  \yi.'i 


SECT.  II,  58  CHAP.  II. 

latent   meaning  cannot  acquit  him  from  a  charge   of 
blafphemy. 

*  Jefus   Chrift,    it   will   be    objeded,    did    not    call 

*  himfelf  God,  but  the  Son  of  God.'  Suppofing  he 
did  not  afTume  the  name  God,  in  the  courfe  of  his 
perfonal  minidry  ;  fuppofing  the  Sanhedrim  could  have 
produced  no  evidence  of  any  thing  like  it,  as  the  ground 
of  that  fentence  which  they  pronounced  upon  him  ;  yet  . 
it  is  beyond  a  doubt,  that  his  difciples  gave  him  both 
the  names  and  the  praifes  which  arc  peculiar  to  God. 
When,  therefore,  the  Jews  are  informed,  that  the 
evangelifts  and  apollles  wrote  the  New  Teftament  by 
his  authority  and  under  his  peculiar  diredion  ;  they 
cannot,  fo  long  as  they  underRand  their  own  language 
and  read  their  own  prophets,  but  confider  the  gofpel 
as  impious,  and  i'vo.  obliged  to  approve  the  fentence 
which  th!;ir  fathers  pafTed  upon  him.  For  they 
cannot  doubt,  but  their  Sanhedrim  had  authority  to 
judge  him  ;  that  they  had  good  reafon  to  accufe  him  of 
blafphemy,becauf£  the  writings  of  his  difciples  (by  which 
only  they  are  able  to  judge  of  his  own  fentiments  and 
claims)  invefl.  him  v/lih  the  characters  and  honours  of 
the  true  God;  and,  that  they  could  not  but  pronounce 
a  blafphemer  worthy  of  death,  without  deferting  their 
duty  and  betraying  their  truft. 

*  But    they    who    compcfed    the    Sanhedrim    that 

*  condemned  Jefus  Chrift,   aded  on  the  principles  of 

*  envy,  malice,  and  rage.' — Admitting  they  did,  yet 
the  Jews  in  after-times  will  reply  ;  '  It  is  not  for  r.s  to 

*  fearcb  ihe  hearts  of  our  fore  fathers  :   our  bufinefs  is, 

*  to  inquire  into  the  jujlice  of  their  fentence.      It  was 

*  never  heard  that  wife  and  impartial  men,  laid   more 

*  flrefs  on  furmifes  conceived,  of  the  ill  difpofition  of  a 

*  judge  on  the  bench,  than  on  the  characters  of  judice, 
<  or  injuflice,   found  in  the  fentence  he  pafled.     We 

*  cannot  penetrate    the   hearts   of  men  ;    hut   we   are 

*  taught,  by  our  law,  how  to  diftinguifii  blafJDhcmers. 
*.Por  its  firfl  command  is,  "  Thou  flialt  luve  no  ctlisr 


SECT.  II.  5^  CHAP.  III. 

*'  gods  before  me."    By  this  we  are  obliged  to  reje(n: 

*  your  Mefliah,  for  affuming  the  titks  and  honours  of 
«  God  ;  though,  by  your  own  confellion,  he  is  not  the 

*  God  of  Ifraei.' 


CHAPTER     III. 

The  prhicipp.l  Titles  and  Charailers  -which,  in  the  writings  of 
the  I'rophets,  form  the  idea  of  the  true  God,  are  applied  to 
Jtsus  CinusT. 

1  HAT  Jefus  Chrifl  affumed  the  name  God, 
in  a  proper  fenfe,  appears  from  his  aportles  having 
afcribcd  to  hhii  thofe  perfeclions,  Avhich  form  the  idea 
fignifled  hy  the  moft  venerable  name.  For,  as  before 
cbferved,  there  is  no  ditfcrence,  in  this  reipe<5l,  between 
U'hat  he  fays  of  himftlf,  and  what  his  difciples  fay  of 
him  ;  they  fpeaking  by  his  auihoiliy  and  his  infpiiation. 
To  the  name,  God,  the  prophets  affixed  the  idea  of 
an  almighty  Being,  v/ho  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth.  The  work  of  creation  is  frequently  mentioned 
by  them,  as  the  grand  chara(51cri(Hc  of  the  true  God. 
Of  this  none  can  doubt, — The  formation  of  the  univerfe 
is  alfo  exprefsly  and  repeatedly  afcribed  to  Jefus  Chrifh 
*•  All  things  v/ere  made  by  him,  and  without  hira 
"  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made.  By  him 
**  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaver,  and  that 
"  are  in  earth,  vifibic  and  invifible — all  things  v^-ere 
**  created  by  him  and  for  him.  He  laid  the  foundation 
*'  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  v/orks  of  his 
*'  hands." — That  thefe  things  are  fpoken  of  Chrifl,  is 
evident;  nor  can  the  words  admit  of  a  different  fenfe, 
without  manifell  violence,  as  I  fliall  fnew  in  a  following 
part  of  this  Treatife.     Here  I  fiiall  only  obferve,  that 


sîîCT.  ir.  60  CHAP.  m. 

the  apofllcs,  having  fo  frequently  attributed  the  creation 
of  all  things  to  Jefus  Chiilt  ;  and  that  work  being  fo 
often  mentioned,  by  the  ancient  prophets,  as  the  effed 
of  omnipotent  agency,  and  tlie  moft  obvious  characler 
of  the  true  God,  efpecially  v./hen  contending  with 
idolaters  ;  the  writers  of  the  New  Tefhîment  mu(t  have 
afled  a  molt  unaccountable  part,  and,  they  being  only 
the  amanuenfes  of  Chri(t  himfelf,  he  mud  have  been 
guilty  of  impious  arrogance,  if  he  be  a  mere  creature. 

The  prophets  reprefent  Gcd,  as  an  omnifcknt  Being, 
Perfedl  knowledge  is  alfo  afcribed  to  Jefus  Chrilh 
**  Lord,  thou  knoweft  all  things,  thou  knoweft  that  I 
<*  love  thee,'^  faid  Peter  to  his  Divine  Mafter. — Should 
it  be  oljecled,  *  It  is  no  where  faid,  that  Chi  ill  approved 
*  of  the  honour  which  is  here  done  him,  by  his  apoftle:* 
.Î  ar.fwer,  That  is  little  to  the  purpofe.  For  the 
exprsfiions  muft  be  either  falfe,  or  true.  Jf  true,  Jefus 
muil  approve  of  them,  for  he  is  truth  itfelf  ;  and  they 
prove  the  point  fcr  which  we  plead.  If  they  be  fal/e, 
they  are  pregnant  with  blafphemy  :  and,  if  fo,  the  honour 
of  God  and  the  falvation  of  Peter  made  it  abfolutely 
receflary,  that  he  {hould  have  been  fharply  reproved  for 
them.  What,  fhall  Chrid  fay  to  that  very  apoftle, 
*•  Get  thee  behind  m,e,  fatan!"  when  he  only  endeavoured 
to  dilTuade  him  from  going  up  to  Jerufalem,  there  to 
fuffer;  and  fi;a!l  he  meet  with  no  rebuke  from  the 
humble,  holy  Jefus,  when  he  robs  God  of  his  glory 
and  gives  it  to  another,  by  afcribing  a  divine  perfeérion 
to  a  mere  man  !  Peter's  fault,  for  v.'hich  Jefus  rebuked 
•him,  arofe  from  his  indifcreet  zeal  for  the  honour  and 
fafety  of  his  Mailer.  Ile  did  not  perceive,  wliilc  he 
was  endeavour ing  to  prevent  the  death  of  his  Lord, 
that  he  was  aticmptii.g  to  counterafl  the  counfels  of 
heaven;  and  to  hinder  an  event,  by  which  the  glory 
of  Gcd  is  more  highly  exaktd,  than  by  any  other  in 
the  whole  adminiftration  of  Providence. — There  is 
rothiiig  fo  precious  as  the  glory  of  Gcd,  it  being  the 
uhin:ate  erj  of  all  things:  ccnfequcntly,  fo  far  as  any 


SECT.  II.  6i  CHAP.   ilL 


in 


thing  is  contrary  to  it,  it  m\.\([  be  deleiliible.  But, 
the  pafTage  before  us,  the  apoftle  not  only  fpeakg 
tinadvifedlyi  in  regard  to  the  glory  of  God  ;  but,  if  his 
afl'ertion  be  faife,  he  is  guilty  of  blafpbemy.  For  he 
not  only  afcribes  to  Jefus  the  knowledge  oi  a!l  things  in 
general  j  but  alfo  that  of  the  human  hearty  in  particular. 
"  Lord,  thou  knoweft  all  things,  thou  knowelt  thst 
"  I  LOVE  THEE."  This  is  2l  dilHnguilliing  chara(fter  of 
Jehovah's  glory,  and  a  perfection  peculiar  to  the  true 
God.  For  thus  it  is  written  ;  "  The  heart  is  deceitful 
*'  above  all  things,  and  defperately  wicked;  who  can 
*'  know  it?  I  THE  Lord  fearch  the  heart,  I  try  the 
**  reins.'*  Here  the  God  of  Ifrael  attributes  to  himfelf 
the  knowledge  of  the  heart,  as  his  own  peculiar  glory. 

To  place  this  momentous  truth  in  a  flill  Uronger 
light,  the  words  of  Solomon,  in  his  admirable  praj'er  at 
the  dedication  of  the  temple,  may  be  confidered. 
**  Thou,  even  Thou  only,  knoweft  the  hearts  of  all 
**  the  children  of  men."  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  the 
title,  "  Searcher  of  hearts,"  is  included  in  that  idea, 
which  the  prophets  give  of  the  eternal  God;  and  that 
it  cannot  belong  to  a  mere  creature,  nor  be  given  to  hini 
without  blafphemy.  Yet  it  is  equally  clear,  that  Jefus 
takes  the  Divine  title  to  himfelf,  and  that  in  the  moll: 
folemn  and  remarkable  manner.  "  All  the  churches 
*'  fhall  know  that  I  am  HE  which  fcarcheth  the  reins 
**  and  hearts  ;  and  I  v/ill  give  unto  every  one  of  you 
**  according  to  your  w^orks."  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  Jefus  not  only  afTumes  the  name,  God  ;  but  alfo 
afierts  his  intereil  in  thofe  attributes  which  form,  in  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  the  moft  proper  and  fublime 
idea  of  the  Great  Supreme.  Confequcntly,  if  Jefus 
Chrilt  be  not  the  God  of  Ifrael,  the  Jews  are  obliged  to 
rejedl  his  tediniony  as  falfe,  and  his  high  prétendons  as 
bhtfphemous. 

It  will  be  faid,  *  Chrid  does  not  appropriate  this  title 

*  to  himfelf  in  the  fame  finf^  in  which  the  God  of  Ifrael 

*  claims  it,  in  the  ancient  prophets.     When  God  iô  faii 

F 


SECT.  II.  62  CHAP.  UU 

*  to  "  knov/  the  heart,  and  to  try  the  rein?,'*  the  words 

*  are  to  be  underflood  of  fuch  a  knowledge  as  is  peculiar 

*  to   him  ;  for  he  is  not  beholden  to   another  for  it. 

*  Whereas  when  Jefus  Chrift  fays,  **  I  fcarch  the  reins 
*'  and  hearts  ;"  the  words  are  to  be  undcrilood  of  a 

*  dvri'oed  knowledge.     For  he  does  not  know  the  fecrets 

*  of  the  heart  immediately  and  of  himfelf,  but  becaufe 

*  God  reveals  them  to  hiin.' — But  when  a  perfcn  attri- 
butes to  hinifeif  an  eminent  quality,  or  an  exalted 
chara«5ler,  which  is  calculated  to  raife  a  fufiiicion  in 
others,  that  he  afTumes  an  honour  which  does  not  belong 
to  him  ;  he  is  obliged  to  explain  himfelf,  by  removing 
the  ambiguicy  of  the  terms  ;  ctherwife,  his  temper  may  be 
iuftly  acculed  of  arrogance,  and  his  concuél  of  robbery. 
80,  if  a  fubjecl  (hould  have  a  defire  to  be  honoured  ^vith 
the-  title  of  niaje/ly,  under  a  pretence  of  his  pofTeiling 
fome  confiderable  office  in  the  ftate  ;  and  if  he  v/ere 
adu?.lly  ^D  honoured,  he  would  be  guilty  of  a  capital 
crime,  againft  the  dignity  of  him  v/hofe  glory  he  ufurped. 
And  though,  in  his  ov/n  defence,  he  fliould  fay,  That 
he  did  not  defire,  nor  accept  the  title  in  the  fame  fenfc, 
ror  affix  to  it  that  exalted  idea,  which  it  bears  when 
applied  to  his  lawful  fovereign,  and  which  is  commonly 
annexed  to  it  by  other  men  ;  and  that  he  meant  no  more 
•by  it  than  a  fubordinate  and  dependent  majefly  ;  he 
v/ould  foon  be  informed,  that  his  excufes  are  mean  and 
liis  reafons  defplicable.  He  would  quickly  be  told,  that 
the  word  majejly^  being,  by  general  cullom  and  the 
pleafare  of  ruling  powers,  appropriated  to  exprefs  the 
fovereign  dignity  of  kings  ;  by  which  they  are  not  only 
difiinguinned  from  all  their  fubje<fts,  but  alfo  from  other 
prrnces  ;  he  could  not,  without  giving  jufl:  and  great 
onence,  aiuime  the  tide  in  any  fenfe,  much  lefs  with- 
out giving  the  leaft  explanation  of  it. — So  the  title, 
*'  Searcher  of  hearts,"  is,  by  divine  authority  and  com- 
mon ufe,  appropriated  toexprefs  the  peculiar  and  effential 
<^lory  of  God.  By  commcn  life:  For  no  man,  if  we 
■except  our  adverfaries,  ever  afcribcd  it  to  any  but  God  \ 


aECT.   Il,  63  CHAP.   IV, 

TiTid  believers  confider  it  as  one  ofihofe  divine  cliarader. 
idles,  by  which  he  is  diftinguilhed  from  all  otlier 
intelligences,  and  infinitely  exalted  above  all  creature?!. 
By  Divine  aulhnrïfy  :  For  it  is  God,  by  the  miniflfy  of 
his  prophets,  who  afcribes  it  to  hiinfdf  ;  who  alllimes  it 
on  different  oceauons,  as  belonging  to  hinifoif  only,  and 
as  being  a  peculi-'.r  character  of  his  glory.  None,  there- 
fore, befides  Goà,  can  aflame  it  without  offence  ;  much 
jefs  could  any  mere  creature  take  it  on  himfelF,  wiihout 
explaining  in  what  fenfc  he  applies  it.  Yet  Chtid  fays, 
with  an  air  of  authority  becoming  none  but  Jehovah, 
;ind  with  the  utraoit  folemnity,  as  of  a  matter  of  the 
]a\\  imparrance  ;  *♦  All   the  churches  fhsll  know  that 

"    I     AM     HE   WHICH     SEARCHETH      THE      RKISS     AND 

*'  hearts;  and  I  will  give  unto  every  one  of  yoii 
*'  according  to  your  works."  In  which  words,  the 
Redeemer  conneds  the  idea  of  un'iverjal  Judge,  with 
the  fublime  charafler,  Searcher  of  hearts  ;  as  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  does,  when  he  fpeaks  of  the  most  High. 
An-d,  indeed,  if  Jtfus  were  not  the  latter,  he  would  be 
very  unfit  for  the  orTtce  of  the  former  ;  he  being  but 
poorly  quaîiiîed  *'  to  give  to  every  one  according  to  bis 
''  works,"  who  is  not  capable  of  **  fearching  the  heart." 
Nor  have  we  the  leal!  intimation  in  Scripture,  that 
God's  knowledgiC  of  the  heart  is  immr/i/itc,  but  that  of 
Chn^^medialef  or  by  revelation.  For  the  apofile  does 
not  attribute  this  knowledge  to  Jefus  Chrift,  becaufe 
the  fecrets  of  the  heart  are  revealed  to  him  ;  but  becaufe 
he  confiders  him  as  knoivhig  all  ihings,  '*  Lord,  thou 
*•'  knovveil:  all  things,  thou  knoweft  that  I  love  t!ice." 
For  a  perfon  to  know  the  thouglits  of  the  heart,  btca..le 
God  reveals  them  to  him,  is  to  know  tlicm  only  as  rnan  ; 
but  to  knov/  them,  becaufe  he  knows  all  things,  is  to 
know  them  as  God.      Such  is  the  knouledge  vvhicli  Im 

here  attributed  to  Jefus  Chrift Further  :    If  to  knov/ 

tlie  fecrets  of  the  heart,  by  revelation,  were  a  fufficierc 
î;eHfon  of  the  title,  Searcher  of  hearts;  the  apof'lcG 
«hcmftives  might  have  claimed  the  glory  of  it.     Fo;' 


SrCT.   II.  64  CHAP     111, 

they,  no  doubt,  as  feme  of  the  ancient  prophets,  on 
particular  occafions,  had  the  thoughts  of  mens  hearts 
jevcrJed  to  them.  This  gift,  it  is  probable,  was  greater 
in  fome  than  it  was  in  others.  Suppofe,  then,  that  one 
individual  among  them  had  it  in  the  richefi  mcafure  and 
'o  the  highefî  degree,  fo  that  he  knew  all  fecrets  in 
;;eneral.  On  fuch  a  flippofition,  1  demand,  whether  he 
might  lawfully  have  alTamed  the  characfier,  Searcher  of 
hearts?  To  affert  that  he  mif:ht,  is  blafphemous  ; 
î-^ecaufe  it  attributes  that  which  is  peculiar  to  God  and 
Jtfus  Chrid,  to  another.  If  it  be  allowed  that  he  might 
rot,  it  follows,  that  whoever  calls  himfelf  The  fearcher 
(f  hearts^  means  fomethingmore  than  knowing  the  heart, 
ly  revelafion. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  replied  ;  *  How  great  focvcr  we 
'  ftifpofe  the  knowledge  of  this  man    to  be,    yet  the 

*  knovN-ledge   of  Chrift    will    be    found  more  perfeft; 

*  which  is  a  fufHcient  reafon  why  he  fhould  not  bear  the 

*  title  with  him.' — But  if  tlie  fuppofed  peifon's  know- 
ledge be  inferior  to  that  cf  Chrid  ;  the  knov/ledge  of 
Chrid  raaft  be  (till  more  inferior  to  that  of  God.  If, 
then,  it  would  be  unlawful  for  fuch  an  one  to  afliime  the 
cxal:ed  title,  cut  of  refped  for  Chrifl  ;  a  regard  for  the 
i'.onour  of  God  ought  much  more  to  have  prevented  the 
Tr;an  Jefiis  from  ever  afTuming  it.  For  the  honour  of 
God  is  of  infinitely  greater  confequence  than  that  of 
Chriii,  if  he  be  a  mere  creature.  Befides,  the  know- 
Jidge  of  Jefus,  if  he  be  not  God,  and  the  knowledge  of 
this  man,  being  both  of  the  fame  kind,  can  differ  only 
in  dtgree.     But  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  that  of  Jefus 

-Chrill,  are  ejfenùally  different.  God's  knowledge  of 
the  heart  is  immediate  and  cf  himfelf;  but  that  of 
Chriilj  is  mediate  and  by  revelation.  So  that  if  the 
nan,  fanpofed  to  know  the  heart,  cannot  fay,  "  All 
**  the  churches  fb;all  know  that  1  am  he  which  fearcheth 
*'  the  reigns  and  hearts,"  without  ufurping  the  glory  of 
Chrift  )  neiiiier  can  Jefus  claim  the  power  of  iearchmg 


$.ECT.  II.  6 S  CHAP,  in., 

the  heart,  or  adopt  the  title,  wlihoiit  ufurping  the  j^lory 
^f  God. 

Again  :  There  is  a  difference,  a  very  material  difrcr- 
<cnce,  between  knoiving  the  fecrets  of  the  heart,  and 
l)eing  the  fearcher  of  the  heart.  He  w  iio  fcarches  the 
heart,  muil:  be  acquainted  with  its  thoughts  ;  but  it  doec 
jict  necefTarily  follow,  that  he  who  knows  its  latent 
defires  and  intentions,  is  pofTefTed  of  a  capacity  to  fearch 
it.  It  may  be  did  of  a  nian,  to  whom  che  thoughts  of 
xinother  are  revealed,  *  He  knows  his  heart  :'  yet  a 
^orudent  and  pious  man  would  avoid  fuch  general  expref- 
jions,  left  he  fliould  be  fufpeâed  of  profanenefs,  and 
.would  rather  fay^  *  He  knows  his  heart  by  revelation.* 
But  he  will  n-cver  fay,  '*  He  tries  his  reir.s  ?inA  fearcbcs 
*'  his  heart  ;"  bccaufc  that  would  be  falfc  and  impious. 
JFor  when  any  one  is  faid,  to  know  the  thought?,  to 
fearch  the  hegrt,  and  to  try  the  reins,  the  phrafes  do  not 
lignify  knowledge  obtained  from  another,  ly  revelaiiort  ; 
but  to  know,  find  out,  and  difcover,  by  his  own  under- 
ilanding,  what  lies  concealed  from  others. — Once  more  : 
When  Chrid  fays,  "  J  am  h  e  v.-hich  fearcheth  the  reins 
*'  and  hearts  ;"  he  either  means,  that  v/e  fiiould  keep 
10  the  natural  fignihcation  of  his  words,  or  that  we  fnould 
depart  from  it.  Jf  die  latier^  he  has  laid  a  fnare  for  us  ; 
he  had  a  defign  to  deceive  us.  For  what  elfe  could  b« 
the  reafon  of  his  talking,  with  fuch  folerr.nity,  fo  as  not 
to  be  underdood  ?  And  how  Oiouid  he  be  underdood, 
when  he  auixes  an  unnatural  fignincation  to  his  words  ? 
If  the /:?r, '?.£';-,  we  cannot  but  conclude,  that  knowing 
the  fecrets  of  the  heart,  by  revelation,  and  fearching  the 
heart,  are  diiTcrent  thifigc. 

The  prophets  defcribe  the  true  God,  as  the  Sav-our, 
the  only  Saviour  of  finners.  For  thus  it  is  written  ; 
*•  I,  even  I  am  Jehovah,  and  befide  Me  there  is  no 
**  Saviour."  And  again  :  "  Look  unto  Me  and  be  ye 
«'  faved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  for  I  am  God,  and 
"  there  is  none  elfe.''  There  is  an  allufionj  I  acknow- 
Jcdge,  in  thcfe  paflagcs,  to  the  idols  of  the  Heathen, 


SECT.   II.  C6  CHAP.  Ill, 

that  were  unable  to  fiwe  their  deluded  votaries  ;  btit  yet 
this  general  truth  is  plainly  and  Ihongly  implitd,  That 
God  only  can  lave  the  ends  of  the  earth.  I'he  immedi- 
ately preceding  vcvfe,  in  the  latter  of  thefe  texts,  puts 
this  beyond  a  doubt.  For  thus  it  is  written,  "  There 
*'  is  no  GodelfebelidesMe;  a  juft  God  anda  Saviour, 
*'  there  is  none  besides  Me."  And  yet  Jefus  Chrift 
rot  only  profefics  to  fare  finners,  but  he  calls  himfelf 
THE  Saviour,  by  way  of  eminence,  and  in  contradif- 
tin<fiion  to  all  others.  Is  it  not  manifeft,  then,  that  he 
afîumes  a  charader,  in  the  moft  emphatical  way,  which 
the  God  of  Ifrael  had  challenged  and  appropriated  to 
himfelf? — When  the  prophets  reproved  the  folly  and 
^^'ickednefs  of  them  that  put  their  trufl:  in  idols,  by  faying, 
there  is  no  Saviour  but  the  God  of  Jacob  ;  they  either 
intended  to  lay  down  a  principle  for  the  inflruélion  of 
men  in  all  fucceeding  ages,  or  only  for  the  time  then 
prefect.  If  the  latler^  the  reafon  that  God  ufed  in  ancient 
times,  by  which  to  confound  idolatry,  is  no  longer  of 
any  force  on  fuch  an  occafion  :  nay,  which  is  more 
extraordinary,  an  oracle  becomes  falfe,  at  the  very  time 
in  which  it  is  accomplidied.  For  this  divinely  gracious 
declaration,  *'  Look  unto  Me  and  be  ye  faved,  all 
*'  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  for  I  am  God,  and  there 
<•  is  none  dfc  ;'*  refers  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  was  not  fulfilled  till  after  the  Mefliah  appeared  :  and 
yet  it  is  fince  his  appearance,  that  we  hear  of  a  Saviour. 
snd  Lord,  befides  the  God  of  Ifrael,  who  delivered 
that  oracle.  If  the  former,  and  if  this  declaration  be 
n  perpetual  truth,  "  There  is  no  God  befides  Me,  a 
"  juft  God  and  a  Saviour,  there  is  none  befides  Me  ;" 
then  I  demand,  whether  he  ought  not  to  be  accounted 
a  blafphemer,  who,  though  he  be  not  the  God  of  Ifrael, 
yet  calls  himfelf  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ? 

*  He  calls  himfelf,  it  will  be  faid,  a  fubordinate 
«  Saviour.»  What,  then,  does  Jehovah  mean  when 
he  fays,  *'  I  am  a  juft  God  and  a  Saviour,  there  is 
f'  KCNE  besides  ME — 1,  evcn  I  am  the  Lord,  and 


SECT.  II.  67  CHAP  in. 

**  be  fid  es  Me  there  is  no  Sat  i  our  !"  Does  he  not 
exclude,  fuhordinate  gods  and  faviours  ?  Suppofing  the 
ancient  Ifraelites  had  confidered  Mofes  as  a  fabordinaic 
god  and  faviour,  and  worfliipped  him  after  his  death, 
becaufe  they  v/ere  delivered  by  his  minidry  out  of 
Egyptian  bondage  ;  would  they  not  have  a(5led  contrary 
to  the  meaning  of  thefe  declarations  ?  It  is  abfurd  to 
imagine,  that  the  prophets  did  not  intend  to  exclude 
all  fubordinate  gods  and  Saviours  \  becaufe  the  far 
greater  part  of  Pagan  deities  were  confidered,  by  the 
dupes  of  idolatry,  under  thofe  chaiaders.  It  is,  at 
the  fame  time,  evident,  that  the  penmen  of  the  ancient 
Sciiptures  teach  us  to  acknowledge  but  one  God,  and 
one  Saviour,  even  the  God  of  Ifrael.  Confequently, 
he  who  calls  himfelf  the  Saviour  of  thk  world, 
does  not  only  affiime  the  name,  God  ;  but  alfo  annexes 
to  it,  one  of  the  mo(t  gracious,  endearing,  and  glorious 
ideas,  that  are  included  in  it  in  the  ancient  oracles  ;  or 
that  can  be  affixed  to  it  by  men  or  angels. 

The  prophets,  to  diftinguilh  the  true  God  from  all 
other  beings,  call  him,  **  the  First  and  the  Last." 
This  chara^fter  they  apply  to  Jehovah,  as  peculiar  to 
him  and  incommunicable.  Yet,  in  the  Revelation  of 
John,  it  is  repeatedly  afiumed  by  Jefus  Chriit. — It  is 
agreed,  on  all  hands,  that  this  very  fublime  title  was 
never  given  to  any  but  the  God  of  Ifrael,  till  after  the 
incarnation  :  it  was,  therefore,  become  peculiar  to  Him 
by  ancient  and  univerfal  cuftom.  Nor  can  it  be  quedion- 
cd,  if  any  creature  had  dared  to  apply  it  to  liimfelf,  before 
the  MelTiah  came,  but  he  would  have  been  charged  with 
impiety  and  blafphemy.  And  were  either  man,  or 
angel,  at  this  day  to  afTume  it,  the  fame  accufation 
Would  be  laid  againft  him,  and  his  conda<n:  would  be 
detefted.  Confequently,  our  adverfaries  themfelves, 
^^'ere  it  not  to  ferve  an  hypothefis,  would  not  hefitate 
a  moment  to  allow  ;  That  as  this  character  v/as  peculiar 
to  God,  before  the  Mefiiah  came,  fo  it  is  now,  and  fo- 
il mufl  ever  be  j  and  that  it  is  abfurdly  blafphemous, 


,.ECT.   II.  68  CHAP.   III. 

to  think  of  applying  it  to  any  other. — Should  it  be  faid, 

*  If  any  pcrlon  were  to  afliime  this  title  now,  he  would 
'  be  guiity  of  impiety  ;  becaufe  he  would  wrong  Jçfus 

*  Chrift,  to  whom  it  belongs  :' — I  anfwer,  He  would 
injure  God  much  more,  to  whom  it  really  appertain?. 
And  if  any  man,  who  fhould  ufurp  it  at  this  day4 
would  rob  Chrift  of  his  honour  ;  he,  who  fliould  have 
dared  to  afTume  it  before  the  Redeemer  came,  would 
have  committed  facrilege  on  the  true  God,  Hence 
it  appears,  that  this  charader  is  peculiar  to  the  Great 
Supreme. 

Again  :  This  title  fi-ands  among  the  praifes  of  the 
Moft  High  ;  even  in  thofe  parages  vv'here  he  profefTedly 
difplays  his  glories,  and  afferts  his  fovereign  majefty. 
Now  if  it  be  jnot  adapted  to  anAvcr  fuch  a  defign,  why 
fhould  it  (land  in  conneclion  with  thofe  magnificent 
defcriptions  of  Jehovah's  glory  ?  But  if  it  be  fitted  to 
exprefs  the  eternity  and  majefty,  the  grandeur  and 
glory  of  God,  it  muft  be  peculiar  to  Him — fo  peculiar, 
that  it  cannot,  without  blafphemy,  be  alTumed  by  any 
mere  creature.  Jt  is  fo  conne^ed  with  other  ch.araders 
and  attributes,  which  are  confcfTedly  peculiar  to  God, 
that  it  is  impoilible,  without  rendering  the  fmefl  oracles 
ef  the  prophets  nonfenfical,  to  diuinguiili  it  from  them. 
Sometimes,  for  inflance,  it  is  connected  with  his  potver; 
"  Who  haih  v/rought  and  done  it,  calling  tlie  generations 
<*  from  the  beginning  ?  I  the  Lord,  the  Firlt  and  v/ith 
*'  the  Lall,  I  am  He.'*  jSometimes  it  is  joined  with 
the  charaéters  of  his  grandeur  and  majejty.  **  Thus 
**  faith  the  Lord  the  king  of  Ifrael,  and  his  redeemer 
"  the  Lord  of  holts  ;  I  am  the  Firft,  and  I  am  the 
"  Lafl,  and  befides  me  there  is  no  God."  Here  it  is 
obfcrvable,  that  ^fter  the  Mod  High  has  taken  to 
himfelf  this  truly  fublime  title,  he  adds,  **  befides  Me 
«  there  is  no  God  ;"  to  iri'orm  us,  that  none  but  He 
pofTefTes  the  dominion  and  glory  implied  in  it,  and  in 
jhofe  which  attend  it.  At  other  times,  be  conneds 
^tijc  glory  of  this  title  with  that  which   attejids   \\i% 


SECT.   II.  69  CHAP.   IIÏ. 

chara<5ler  as  Creator.  *'  Hearken  unto  mc,  O  Jacob 
"  and  ifrael,  my  called  :  I  am  H*,  I  am  the  Fir(t,  Ï 
*'  alfo  am  the  Laft.  Mine  hand  alfo  hath  laid  the 
*'  foundation  of  the  earth."  Once  more  :  It  is  ufed 
to  exprefs  the  unity  of  God.  For  thus  it  is  explained  ; 
"  Before  Me  there  was  no  God  formed,  neither 
**  fhall  there  be  after  Me."  But  if  this  title  were  not 
peeuliar  to  the  eternal  God,  how  could  it  fgnify  his 
unity  ? 

Farther:  When  Jefus  calls  himfelf,  *♦  The  Firft  and 
**  the  Lafl,"  he  either  applies  the  augufl  charafler  in 
in  the  fame  fenfe,  in  which  it  was  \ifed  by  the  prophets, 
or  in  one  that  is  different.  If  the  latter,  he  leads  men, 
by  ambiguous  exprefiions,  into  error  and  idolatry. 
Nay,  on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  he  is  guilty 
of  blafphemy  ;  becaufe  he  afiumes  a  title,  in  an  abfolute 
manner,  which  does  not  agree  to  him  but  with  a 
reftri^tion.  He  alters,  by  his  own  authority,  the 
fignification  of  terms,  confecrated  by  a  divine  ufe.  Ke 
does  what  no  honeft  and  fenfible  man  ever  did  ;  for  he 
changes  the  knov/n  and  ordinary  meaning  of  words, 
relating  to  matters  of  the  greatest  importance,  without 
giving  us  the  leaft  notice  of  it  ;  and,  by  fo  doing,  he 
opens  a  door  for  impiety  and  blafphemy,  to  the  whole 
world.  For  as  he  attributes  to  himfelf  fuch  titles  as 
are  given  to  the  true  God,  by  changing  mentally  the 
cflabliflied  (ignincation  of  words,  in  the  Old  Teflanrient; 
why  may  not  I,  or  any  other  man,  after  his  example, 
affume  the  principal  charadcrs  of  the  Mefliah,  by 
changing  mentally,  according  to  my  fancy,  the  moft 
knov/n  fignification  of  exprelfions,  in  the  NewTedament? 
But  if  he  apply  the  charader  in  the  fame  fenfe,  in 
which  it  was  ufed  by  the  prophets  ;  then  he  defcribes 
himfelf  by  a  title  which  they  confidered  as  exprefling, 
the  eternity  and  unity,  the  dominion  and  glory  of  God. 
And,  by  fo  doing,  he  practically  declares,  that  it  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  God  of  Ifrael,  to  v/hom  only  the 
prophets  applied  it  ,*    and,  confequently,  the  languag-î- 


SECT.  II.  70  CHAP.   III. 

of  the  prophets  is  fulfe.  For  if  the  God  of  Jacob  be 
He,  before  and  after  vhom  no  God  has  been  formed  4 
how  can  Jefàs  be  God,  and  a  God  alfo  before  whom 
no  God  exifled,  or  (hall  be  formed  ?  The  confequence 
is,  either  Chrift  is  the  true  God,  or  he  is  guiity  of 
blafphemy  ;  in  attributing  to  himfelf  a  title,  which,  in 
the  language  of  the  prophets,  is  peculiar  to  the  infinite 
God. 

If  Jefus  Chrifl:  be  a  mere  man,  one  cannot  imagine 
how  this  title  can  poffibly  belong  to  him.  For,  either 
F'lrjl  and  Lajl  mufl:  be  underitood  of  a  priority  and 
and  poOeriority  oî  t'lm:  ;  or,  of  a  priority  and  poflerio- 
rky  of  dignity  ;  or,  of  loth.  Ifihejttj^,  the  fenfe  will 
be  ;  I  am  the  Firfi:  and  the  Lafi  in  duration.  But  how 
could  ore  that  was  born  in  the  fulnefs  of  time,  be  the 
^rfi  in  duration  ?  If  the  fécond^  the  meaning  m.uft  be; 
I  am  the  Firft  and  the  lafl  in  dignity.  But  how  can 
Jefus  be  the  lajl  in  dignity,  when  John  the  Baptift,  who 
was  greater  than  any  of  the  ancient  prophets,  confidered 
himfelf  as  unworthy  to  loofe  the  latchet  of  his  fnoe  ?  If 
the  third,  then  the  (ignification  of  the  words  muft  either 
be  ;  I  am  the  Firjl  in  time,  and  the  LaJ  in  dignity  ; 
which  is  manifeltly  falfe  :  Or  thus,  I  am  the  Firft  in 
dignity,  and  the  Lafl  in  time;  which  is  equally  falfe. 
For  how  can  Jefus  be  the  Laft,  in  tiweF  Was  lie  the  laft 
tnan  that  was  born  ?  That  cannot  be.  Nor  was  he  the 
laft  ot  G od^ s  fervanf s  ;  for  there  have  been  mnny  who 
ferved  God  faithfully,  and  were  the  honoured  inftruments 
of  his  glory,  fince  the  afcenfion  of  Chrifl.  Or  thus,  I 
am  the  Firfl  and  the  Lad,  in  iime  and  in  dignity  ;  which 
is  vet  more  glaringly  falfe.  For  if  he  be  not  the  Firfl 
and  the  Lafl,  in  iime;  nor  the  Firfl  and  the  Lafl,  in 
dignify;  it  is  doubly  falfe  to  fay  that  he  is  fo,  in  both 
the  one  and  the  other. — But  our  bufinefs  here,  is  not 
To  much  with  the  truth  of  liis  words,  as  with  the  hvprejfion 
iliey  were  adapted  to  make  on  the  minds  of  the  Jews, 
who  were  taught  by  the  prophets.  On  hearino  Jefvs 
iep^atedly  ^nd  folemnly  apply  thi?  titb  to  himftlf,  they 


SECT*   lî.  71  CHAP.   IV. 

could  not  but  confider  him,  as  ufiirping  a  charadïer 
peculiar  to  the  eternal  Jehovah  ;  and,  confequer/Jy, 
as  guilty  of  blafphemy.  Either,  then,  the  Jews  were 
to  blame  for  oppofing  impiety,  blafphemy,  and  idolatry  j 
or  they  could  not  avoid  palling  fentence  of  condemnation 
upon  Jefus  Chrill,  if  he  fpake  as  his  difciples  wrote,  and 
if  they  have  given  a  true  reprcfentation  of  his  claims, 
his  language;  and  his  conducl  :  at  Icafl,  they  could  not 
avoid  rejeding  the  gofpel,  the  preachers  of  it  being  !• 
evidently  convi^fled  of  blafphemy. 


CHAPTER     IF. 

Jesus  Christ  declared  to  be  Equal  with  God. 

A  AUL  afierts,  in  the  pîalnefl  manner,  tha£ 
Jefus  '•  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  eqjjal  with  God." 
We  fliall  fee  in  the  profecution  of  our  fubjefl,  the  vanity 
of  thofe  cvaflons  to  which  our  advcrfaries  have  recourfe, 
in  explaiiîing  this  paffagc,  fo  as  to  agree  with  their 
hypothcns.  But,  however  we  underftand  the  text,  it 
mud  be  allowed  to  attribute  to  Jefus  Chri(l  fome  kind 
of  equalitv  v.'ith  his  Father,  who  is  confefTedlv  the  true 
God. 

Some,  perhaps,  may  fay  ;    *  No  conclufion  can  be 
'  drawn  from  a  lingle  expreilion  ;  fuch  an  one,  efpecialiy, 

*  as  ought  not  to  be  underftood  in  the  flrictly  literal 
'  lenfe  :  becaufe  there  are  examples  of  a  fimilar  exprcf- 

*  fio>ii,  one  of  which  is  found  in  Homer,  where  it  does 

*  not  fignify  a  real  and  proper  equality  with  God.* — To 
■whicii  i  reply  ;  It  is  very  unbecoming  to  produce  ex- 
amples of  this  kind,  from  Homer,  did  he  afFord  evcr  fo 
many.  For  it  is  notorious»  that  the  writings  of  the 
Heathens,  and  e{peci?ily  thofe   of  the  poets,  abour^d 


suer.  II.  72  CHAP.   IV. 

with  impiety  and  blafphemies.  This  confideration  en- 
hances the  value  of  the  Scriptures.  For  it  is  their 
infeparable  ehara<fteriflic,  to  maintain  a  wide,  an  iinmenfe 
diftindion,  between  God  and  the  creature  ;  by  never 
attributing  to  the  latter^  what  only  belongs  to  ihe  former: 
while,  in  human  writings,  men  are  eqi;alled  with  God, 
and  God  is  confounded  w'nh  men. — It  is  wortliy  alfo 
of  beirig  remarked,  that  Paui  is  the  facred  penman,  who 
ufcs  this  way  of  fpeaki^ig  ;  and  he,  it  is  well  known, 
is  ever  careful  to  exalt  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  refer 
all  to  his  glory.  "  We  have,"  fays  that  ambaflador  of 
Chriit,  *'  We  have  this  treafure  in  earthen  ve/Iels,  that 
"  the  excellency  of  the  power  may  be  of  God,  and  not 
"  of  us." — Befides,  thefe  expreffions  being  of  a  very 
peculiar  kind,  and  fuch  as  do  not  readily  come  into  a 
perfon's  thoughts,  plainly  intimate,  that  he  had  a.  parN- 
cuJar  defign  in  penning  them. — *  But  here,  perhaps, 
*  they  may  be  hyperbolical.*  If  they  be,  they  intrench 
on  the  glory  of  God.  When,  upon  flrid  examination, 
we  have  nothing  to  obje6l  againft  an  hyperbole,  but  its 
want  of  Iruih^  the  fault  is  comparatively  imall  ;  but  there 
fnould  be  no  reafon  to  charge  it  with  being  Impious  and 
hlafphemous.  Thus,  for  inltance,  the  Sciipture  never 
fays  ;  That  a  man  is  as  good,  as  wife,  or  as  powerful, 
as  God  ;  becaufe  fuch  expreflions  and  fuch  comparifons 
are  impious,  and  pregnant  whh  blafphemy.  This  evil, 
the  writers  of  the  Old  Tedament  have  avoided  with 
remarkable  care  ;  and  they  who  penned  the  New, 
ought  to  have  been  ftiH  more  on  their  guard  againft  it  ; 
becaufe  it  was  foretold  as  a  dilHnguifliing  character  of 
the  gofpel  difpenfaticn,  that  the  pride  of  man  "  (liculJ 
*'  be  abafed,  and  the  Lord  alone  exalted." 

Though  I  might  here  greatly  enlarge,  I  fnall  confine 
myfelf  to  the  following  confiderations. — God  had 
repeatedly  and  folemnly  declared,  by  the  prophets, 
iT.at  there  is  **  none  like  him."  For  thus  it  is  written: 
«*  To  whom,  then,  will  ye  liken  God  ?  or  what  likenefs 
"  v/ill  ye  compare  unto  him  ? — To  whom,  then,  will 


■SECT,  ir.  73  CHAP.   IV. 

"  ye  liken  me,  or  fiiall  I  be  equal,  faith  the  Holy 
*^  One  ? — To  whom  will  ye  likea  me,  and  make  me 
"  equal,  and  compare  me,  that  we  may  be  like  ?" — 
Thefe  exprefïïons  were  intended,  and  well  adapted,  ta 
confound  idolatry  ;  and  the  truth  contained  in  them 
was  made  by  Jkhovah  the  grand  principle  of  his 
religion  ;  which  Paul  could  not  but  know,  being  well 
Terfed  in  the  ancient  oracles.  But  though  he  hears, 
vmderftands,  and  reveres  that  voice  from  heaven  which 
demands,  *'  To  whom  will  ye  Ii/:ân  me  ?  To  whom 
"  will  ye  make  me  equal P*'  yet  he  boldly  aflerts,  Jefus 
*'  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  eq^jal  with  God." — 
Again  :  The  apoftle  could  not  but  know  the  ground, 
or,  if  you  will,  the  pretence,  on  which  Chrill  was  con- 
demned by  the  Jews  ;  that  is,  becaufe  he  aflerted  his 
l'îketiefs  to  God  and  equaHty  with  him.  This  was  a 
prodigious  offence  to  man  who  had  heard  God  fay,  by 
his  prophets  ;  "  To  whom  will  ye  liken  m.e,  and  make 
*'  me  equal  ?"  Paul  does  what  he  can  to  convert  the 
Jews  to  the  ChrilHan  faith  ;  yet  he  never  attempts  to 
jultify  the  religion  of  Jefus,  from  the  charge  of  equalling 
2  creature  with  the  Creator  ;  though,  on  the  principles 
of  our  opponents,  it  was  highly  neceffary  for  him  fo  to 
have  done,  for  the  falvaticn  of  men  and  the  glory  of 
God.  Nay,  fo  far  was  he  from  endeavouring  to  acquit 
the  caufc  of  his  Matter  from  fuch  a  charge,  that  he 
roundly  aflerts,  Jefus  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
*^  EQUAL  with  God  ;"  which  is  the  very  thing  for 
which  the  Jews  were  fo  offended  with  Chrift,  and  on 
account  of  which  they  confldered  him  as  deferving 
judgment  of  death.  But  can  it  be  fuppofed  that  he  who 
rent  his  garments  when  he  was  taken  for  Mercury,  who 
was  a  fubordinate  god  among  the  heathens  ;  can  it,  I 
fay,  be  fuppofed,  that  this  very  man  fliould  equal  a  mere 
creature  with  the  infinite  God?  If  he  does,  his 
hyperboles,  fijrely,  mufi  be  very  edifying,  and  peculiarly 
v/cll  timed  !  And  does  it  not  highly  become  him  to  fet 
G 


SECT.  II.  J*4  c?:af.  iv'i 

up  for  an  orator,  at  the  expence  of  piety  and  liie  glory 
of  God  ? 

The  irino'^nge  of  the  apodles,  in  other  places,  is  an 
infallible  comment  on  îh.-fc  exprcHîons.  For  they  not 
only  apply  the  name,  God,  to  ihcir  crucified  Saviour; 
but  they  annex  the  fame  ideas  to  it,  which  were  affixed 
to  the  cha^-aftcr  of  JF.  hovafi,  by  the  ancient  prophets. 
.Seeing,  then,  the  apoftlcs  give  îuch  titles  to  Chrift  as 
could  fiot  belong  to  him,  if  he  were  not  a  Divine 
Perfon  and  equal  with  the  Father;  we  ought  to  quertion 
but  Paul  here  ufes  the  term  equals  in  a  proper  and 
literal  ï^vSii. — Further  :  Either  thefe  exprefnons  are 
adopted  by  Ghridians,  or  they  are  not.  If  the  lattei't 
it  mu'l  be  hecaufe  they  thank  the  apodle  fpake  unad- 
vifedly;  which  ftibverts  the  credit  of  his  writings,  andfaps 
the  foundation  of  Chridianity  itfelf.  \ï  \.\\t  former.,  then 
we  may  fafely  conclude,  that  the  other  ppoftles  fpakc 
after  the  fame  manner.  And  if  To,  we  appeal  to  our 
adverfaries,  Whether  the  Jews,  who  heard  them  fpeak 
thus,  are  not  to  be  judified  in  calling  them  blafphemers  ? 
when,  on  the  one  part,  they  faw  that  Chrifl  was  a  mere 
creature  ;  and,  on  the  other»  that  his  difciples  aflerted 
his  eqaailty  with  God. 

When  Jehovah  fay?,  "  To  whom  will  ye  liken  me?" 
he  docs  not  mean  to  exclude  a  refemblancc  oï  analogy  ; 
for  as  he  exifts,  thinks,  and  aCts,  fo  do  rational  creatures: 
but  his  defign  is  to  exclude  a  refembJance  of  equalify. 
Now  the  one,  or  the  other  of  thefe,  mud  be  intended 
in  the  text  before  us.  Not  the  former  ;  for  if  you 
afcribe  to  Chrifl  a  refemblance  of  analogy  only,  you 
attribute  nothing  to  him,  but  what  may  be  affirmed  of 
angels,  of  faints,  and  of  men  in  common  :  and  yet 
neither  Gabriel,  nor  Paul,  nor  any  man  living,  could 
fay,  *  I  think  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,* 
without  being  guilty  of  blafphemy.  It  mud,  therefore, 
be  a  refemblance  of  equality,  which  is  here  attributed 
to  Jefus  Chrid,  according  to  the  natural  fenfe  of  the 
term.     But  though  the  meaning  of  the  adjeéliye  equals 


f?ECT.   lî.  ';^l^  CHAP     n% 

be  fometimes  well  expiCiTed  by  the  word  /ilc;  as  when 
God  fays,  *'  Who  is  like  to  me  ?"  Yet,  when  the  term 
lihi  is  taken  for  refemhUngy  or  crAifarmahlc,  it  is  never 
exprefT^^d  by  the  word  equal. — Nor  is  that  equality, 
v/hich  is  here  attributed  to  Chriil,  melaphoncal.  For 
to  confider  the  apoiUe  as  faying,   '  He  thought  it  not 

*  robbery  to  he  equal  with  God,  by  a  meta]»hor,'  is 
abf.ird  and  ridiculous.  Belides,  as  before  obferved, 
thofe  fit'iires  are  impious,  which  convey  an  idea  contrary 
to  the  glory  of  God. 

As  liiC  Jews  were  not  culpable  for  fi^e^king  like 
other  inen,  cfpeciaily  like  their  own  prophets,  who 
iaftruftc-d  thcni  ;  fo  they  are  not  to  be  blamed  for 
concluding,  that  none  can  be  faid  to  be  "  equal  with 
*'  God,"  except  lie  be  God,  or  except  he  wrong  God. 
Nor  could  they  help  thinking,  that  the  apolUes  cordially 
approved  of  fuch  language  concerning  Jefus  Chrift  :  for 
if  not,    why    did    they  ufe    it  ? — '  But   they   explain 

*  themfelves,  on  other  occafions.*  Suppofing  they  did, 
this  propofition  ;  *  Jefus,  a  mere  creature,  thinks  it  not 

*  robbery  to  be  equal  Vv'ith  God  ;'  would  flill  be 
impious.  Befidcs,  by  fuch  explanations  they  would 
pull  dûv;iî  with  one  hand,  what  they  bulM  with  the 
ciher. 

,  To  conclude;  If  Jcfas  be  not  equal  with  God,  it 
rttuil  be  a  fin  to  ih'inh  that  he  is  ;  and  if  fo,  why  fiicidd 
any  one  ajf^rt  it  ?  To  what  end  were  thofe  exprcffions 
jieedful  ?  To  the  glory  of  God  ?  No  ;  they  difhonour 
the  Deity.  To  exalt  J^fus  Chriil  ?  But  cannot  he  be 
exalted  wilhcut  fctting  him  on  a  level  with  Gcd  ?  '\V:m 
it  to  fhew  the  aecompliihment  of  the  ancient  oracles  I 
But  they  frequently  declare,  that  there  is  only  one  Q^vi^ 
and  that  nothing  is  I'lh  him.  Was  it  to  edify  men  ? 
But  is  it  pouible  for  men  to  be  cdifkd,  by  hesrir.g 
OÎ  a  creature,  of  one  that  owes  his  bclrig  to  Divine 
power,  and  his  blcflednefs  to  Divine  favour,  beip^ 
t-xaltcd  to  an  equality  with  his  Maker?  Peter  and  Paul 
vxrs  not  only  the  difcipies,  but  alfo  the  ambojfadçrs  c( 


SECT.  II.  "^6  CHAP.   V. 

Chrlf^,  and  their  chara(flers  are  judly  held  in  very  liigh 
?!tcem,  by  every  lover  offacred  truth  ;  yet  it'  either  of 
thçm  had  faid,  *  I  think  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
*•'  Jtfiis  ChriH,'  we  fliould  have  called  him  a  blafphemcr 
and  execrated  his  memory.  Now,  on  the  principles  of 
oar  adverfaries,  God  is  infinitely  more  exalted  above 
Jefus  Chrift,  than  Chrift  is  above  his  apoftles.  If,  then, 
an  apoftle  would  have  been  juQly  accufed  of  impiety, 
had  he  equalled  himfelf  with  his  Lord;  ought  not  Chrifl 
to  be  cenfiired  for  blafphemy,  when  he  claims  an 
equality  with  God  ? 


CHAPTER     V. 
Jesuu  Chris'i  received  Religious  Worfhip. 


J  1ÎAT  the  apoflles  and  difcii)les  of  Chrift 
efteemed  and  treated  him  as  a  truly  Divine  Perfon, 
and  that  he  claimed,  in  a  proper  fenfe,  an  equality  with 
God,  v.'ill  further  appear  by  confidering  ;  That  he 
received,  as  a  tribute  due  to  his  digniiy,  thofe  honours 
and  that  adoration,  which  belong  to  none  but  Jehovah. 
That  God,  and  none  but  He,  ought  to  be  worfliip- 
ped,  is  a  fundamental  truth.  Whenever,  therefore, 
men  have  fet  up  themfeUes  as  objeâ:s  of  wordiip,  they 
have  pretended  to  be  gods  ;  and  when  they  have 
relinquidied  their  claim  to  divinity,  they  have  ceafed 
to  require  adoration.  So  that  though  we  had  rot  been 
exprefsly  told,  by  the  infpired  writers,  that  Jems  Chrifl 
is  God  ;  yet  we  could  not  have  queflioned  it  when  wc 
foupd  them  afiert,  that  he  received  adoration  from  his 
difciples,  and  that  the  angels  were  comm.anded  to 
worlhip  him. — If  Jefjs  Chrid  be  God,  by  nature,  he 
has  an  undoubted  right  to  Divine  honours  j  he  cannot 


SECT.   II.  J^  CHAP.   V, 

but  require  them.  But  if  not,  we  cannot,  v/ithoot  facri- 
Xzgt  cind  idolatry,  addrefs  them  to  liim,  becaufe  they  are 
due  to  none  but  Jh^hovah.  For  though  it  were  poiîible, 
on  our  adverfaries  hypothefis,  to  account  for  the  titles 
he  bears,  for  the  authority  he  claims,  and  for  the 
works  of  creation  and  providence  being  afcribed  to  him; 
yet  his  condudt,  in  receiving  divine  worfliip,  would 
for  ever  remain  indefcnfible,  if  he  were  not  the  true 
God. 

A  man,  for  inftance,  who  lliould  take  the  name  of 
I'lngt  where  a  rightful  fovcrcign  is  acknowledged,  would 
certainly  be  very  guilty.  But  his  crime  would  be 
greatly  enhanced,  if  he  dared  to  allume  the  titles 
appropriated  to  ficrnifv  the  grandeur  of  his  fovereign  and 
the  extent  of  his  doniiniors.  For  example,  if,  in  France, 
he  fliould  call  hia.fcif.  King  of  France,  NAVARar, 
&c.  Jf,  in  Hungary,  King  of  Bohemia,  Mungary, 
5cc.  But  he  would  be  dill  more  guilty,  if  he  caufed 
himftjf  to  be  treated  as  a  king  ;  if  he  demanded  the 
titles  of  majeity,  from  thofe  who  addrcfTed  him  ;  and 
required,  as  fome  kings  do,  to  be  ferved  on  the  knee. 
In  this  cafe,  cither  the  allegiance  due  to  the  lawful 
fovereign  mud  be  renounced;  or  this  pretender  mufl: 
be  called  an  ufurper,  and  be  punifhed  as  guilty  of  high 
treafoii. — Thus  the  Jews,  on  the  principles  of  our 
<^pponents,  had  fufficient  reafon  to  treat  Jefus  Chriil. 
The  regard  which  they  had  tothehonour  of  God,  and  the 
obedience  they  owed  to  the  precepts  or  iiis  unchangeable 
law,  would  not  fuffer  them  to  connive  at  the  condu-it 
of  a  man,  or  of  any  mere  creature,  who  received 
ihofe  honours  which  are  due  to  none  but  the  God  of 
Jfrael. 

To  invalidate  this  conclufion  it  mufl:  be  proved, 
«ither,  that  religious  worP.iip  is  not  an  honour  peculiar 
to  God  ;  or,  that  Chrifl  did  not  p-etend  to  this  worfiiip; 
or,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  be  worfhipped  on  ûïtfame 
^roundy  and  in  the  fame  luay.,  as  the  true  God. — It 
«aay,  perhaps,    be  faid,  *  Worfhip  is   not  an   honour 


SILT.   II.  78  CHAP.   V. 

*  peculiar  to  God  ;  for  the  angel  uho  appeared  to  the 

*  patriarchs,    and    to   Mofes  in  the  burning-bufh,  was 

*  worlliipped,  thougii  a  mere  creature.' — This  is  a  great 
miflakc.  For  that  angel  was  a  Divine  Perfon  and  the 
true  God.  This  appears  from  hence.  Abraham  addref- 
fed  him,  as  "  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth,"  and  acknow- 
ledged that  he  was  "  but  duft  and  aflies"  before  him. 
That  angel  revealed  himfelf  to  Mofes,  out  of  tlie 
burning-bufli,  as  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Ifaac, 
"  and  of  Jacob."  From  which  words  Chrift  himfelf 
infers,  that  *'  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of 
*'  the  living."  Confequently,  he  teaches  us  to  conclude, 
that  He  who  fpake  to  Mofes  out  of  the  buih,  was 
more  than  a  creature  ;  was  the  true  God.  For  he 
who  is  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  in  the  oracle  of 
Mofes,  is  "  the  God  of  the  living,"  in  the  language  of 
Jefus  Chrid,  and  both  according  to  our  hypothecs. 

Again:  That  honour  which  is  peculiar  to  God,  ought 
r.ever  to  be  given  to  any  but  God.  Religious  worfhip 
is  fuch  an  honour:  religious  worfhip,  therefore,  ought 
never  to  be  given  to  any  but  God. — That  honour  which 
cannot  be  given  to  a  creature,  without  idolatry,  is 
peculiar  to  God.  But  religious  worfhip  is  fuch  an 
honour,  as  appears  from  the  idolatry  of  the  Gentiles, 
which  confided  in  paying  adoration  to  objects  that  were 
not  God. 

*  But  worflii^is  two-fold;  that  is.,  Julordinaie  and 
*"  fupreme.     The  former  is  paid   to  fubordinate  beings  ; 

*  the  latter  is  due  to  none  but  God.* — This  difîindtion, 
were  it  founded  in  truth,  would  be  but  of  little  fervice 
to  the  caufe,  in  defence  of  which  it  is  applied  ;  becaufe 
it  is  eafy  to  fhew,  that  Chrift  received /w/r^w^  worfliip. 
This  worfhip  confifts,  either  in  thought,  in  word,  or 
in  adion.  He,  therefore,  who  requires  us  to  think 
of  him,  as  we  do  of  the  true  God,  would  have  us 
worfhip  him  as  fuch.  But  Chrift  would  have  us  think 
of  him,  as  we  do  of  the  true  God.  For  he  attributes 
VQ  himfelf  the  perfç<^ions  gf  God;  an4  he  claims  an 


SECT.   II.  "ji^  %'HAP  V. 

equality  with  him.  Confequently,  he  would  have  u$ 
think  of  hinn,  as  we  ought  to  do  of  God. — He  who 
ij>caks  of  himffclf,  or  direds  others  to  fpeak  of  him,  as 
of  the  true  God  ;  would  be  acknowledged  and  worfliip- 
ped  as  fuch.  But  ChrKl  fpeaks,  and  would  be  fpokcn 
of  by  us,  as  the  true  God.  This  appears  from  his 
taking  the  names,  and  afciibing  to  himfelf  the  works  of 
God.  If  not,  why  does  he  afTume  fuch  names,  why 
does  he  declare  that  he  performed  fuch  works,  as  arc 
proper  to  God,  if  he  would  not  have  us  fpeak  of  him 
as  God  ?  What,  (liall  he  fpeak  of  hinifeif  as  God  ;  fliall 
he  afTert,  that  he  created  all  things  and  perfoi  med  the 
works  of  God  ;  and,  afier  all,  be  unwilling  that  ttr 
fliould  fpeak  of  him,  as  God  ?  Abfurd,  to  imagine  ; 
impoflible,  to  prove. — He  who  requires  we  fhould  do 
that  for  him,  which  we  cannot  lawfully  do  for  any  but 
the  true  God,  expeds  to  be  worfliipped  as  fuch.  Bat 
Chrill  requires  us  to  do  that  for  him,  which  we  ought 
Dot  to  do  for  any  but  God.  This  appears  from  hence. 
We  are  bound  to  love  God  above  all  things  :  confe- 
quently, an  affe-ftion  fo  ardent>  and  a  duty  fo  high, 
are  due  to  none  but  God.  We  ought,  however,  to 
love  Jefas  above  all  things  ;  to  love  him  more  than  our 
lives,  which,  of  all  things  in  the  world,  are  the  deareft 
to  us.  He  requires  that  we  fliould  fuffer  martyrdom 
for  his  fake  ;  and,  by  fo  doing,  enjoins  a  duty  which 
we  do  not,  which  we  cannot  owe,  to  any  but  God. 
None  of  the  prophets,  nor  any  of  the  apoiHes,  ever  faid; 
*♦  He  that  forfaketh  not  wife  and  children,  and  houfes 
**  and  lands,  yea,  and  his  own  hfe,  for  my  fake,  is  not 
^  worthy  of  me." 

*  But  Chriil  declares,  that  he  a6ls  in  the  name  of 
*"  his  Father,  and  that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he  ; 
*  which  is  fufficient  to  forbid  us  addreffing  him  vath 
*yîv/>r(?/K^ worftiip.' — To  this  1  anfwer;  Suppofe  a  minifter 
of  (late  fliould  give  orders,  under  his  own  feal,  for- 
coining  money  with  his  imag^  upon  it  ;  at  the  flimc 
time  afiumin^  the  names  and  titles  of  his  lawful  fovsreign; 


SECT.  II.  So  GHAP.  V. 

would  his  condufl  be  juftlfied  by  declaring  once,  or 
twice,  *  My  fovereign  is  greater  than  I,  and  I  a^ft  in 
*  his  name  ?'  Should  we  not,  in  fuch  a  cafe,  have 
leafon  to  fay,  He  denies  by  his  aâions,  what  he  confefles 
in  words,  and  contradids  himfelf  ? — The  application  is 
eafy.  For  as  there  is  a  certain  idea  of  royalty,  which 
fubjefls  ought  never  to  apply  to  any  befides  their  king  ; 
as  there  are  names  snd  titles  fo  appropriated  to  the  perfon 
of  a  fovereign,  that  they  cannot  be  given  to  any  other 
without  offence  ;  and  as  there  are  particular  honours 
due  to  a  crowned  head,  which  cannot,  on  any  pretence 
whatever,  be  paid  to  others,  without  being  guilty  of 
high-treafon  ;  becaufe  the  lignification  of  words  and 
aflions  is  not  fixed  by  the  caprice  or  authority  of  any 
particular  perfon,  but  by  general  confent  and  cuflom  : 
fo,  by  a  mod  ancient,  facred,  and  inviolable  ufe, 
eilablifhed  by  the  prophets,  eftabliflied  by  the  eternal 
Sovereign  himfelf,  there  are  feme  ideas  fo  appropriated 
to  God,  that  they  cannot  poff.bly  belong  to  any  other  ; 
there  are  feme  titles  fo  peculiar  to  him,  that  it  is  high- 
treafon,  in  a  divine  fenfe,  to  give  them  to  any  other; 
and  there  are  certain  honours  fo  peculiarly  due  to  him, 
that  they  cannot  be  given  to  another,  without  "  denying 
**  the  God  that  is  above,"  and  incurring  the  complicated 
guilt  of  blafphcmy  and  idolatry.  Such  an  honour  is 
veligious  worfhip.  For,  if  there  be  any  difpofitions  of 
neart,  if  any  language  of  the  tongue,  if  any  actions  in 
life,  by  which  it  is  pofTible  for  us  to  exprefs  a  fuitable 
difliniftion  between  God  and  every  mere  creature,  they 
mufl  be  thofe  of  a  devotional  kind.  And  as  the  moft 
fjncere,  the  mofl  fervent,  the  moft  fublime  adoration 
v/e  can  pay  to  Jehovah,  neither  expreffes,  nor  imj)lies 
any  more,  than  a  dutiful  defire  and  endeavour  to  treat 
GoD,  AS  God;  fo  the  leafl  degree  of  that  worfhip, 
•when  given  to  a  mere  creature,  is  an  alienation  of  the 
ïàghts  of  Deity,  and  a  placing  that  creature  on  the 
^ooe  of  the  Moft  High. 


SECT.   lî.  8l  CHAP.  V. 

*  Suhordinate  worfliip  is  diflinguifhed  from  that  which 

*  is  fupremc.      The  latter  belongs  to  God  only,    as  the 

*  fource  of  being  and  i)erfe<5lion  ;    while  the  former  may 

*  be  given    to   Chrift,  though   a    dependent   being  ;  he 

*  having  received,   from  the  Great  Sovereign,   peculiar 

*  honours  and  authority.' — But  there  is  abundant  reafon 
to  conclude,  that  tliis  fuhordina'e  worffiip  was  not 
known  to  the  divine  Legiflator,  nor  to  the  prophets, 
nor  to  the  apoftles,  nor  to  angels,  nor  to  Jefus  Chrid 
himfelf  ;  of  all  which  in  their  order.  That  the  Divine 
Legiflator  knew  nothing  of  this  kind  of  worfhip,  appears 
from  hence  :  He  forbids  all  '•juorjhip^  in  general,  which 
does  not  belong  to  the  true  God  j  and  that  in  a  moral 
precept,  the  obligation  of  which  is  perpetual.  This  he 
would  not  have  done,  had  fubordinate  worfliip  been 
lawful  ;  left,  by  ambiguous  expreflions,  he  ihould  have 
led  mankind  into  error.  Nor  would  he  have  forbidden 
us,  without  exception,  to  worfliip  any  befides  God  ;  but 
only  to  worfliip  any  other  with  fupreuie  worfliip.  If 
the  Divine  Lawgiver  intended  that  the  promifed  Mefliah, 
though  a  more  creature,  ftiould  be  adored  when  he 
appeared  ;  why  did  he,  in  fach  general  terms,  utterly 
forbid  all  manner  of  worfliip  that  is  not  given  to  the 
God  of  Ifrael  ? — Bifides,  he  evidently  deflgned  to 
difcourage  and  condemn  the  Gentile  idolatry.  But 
that  idolatry  principally  confided,  in  wor(hipping  various 
divinities  with  fubordinaie  worfliip  :  for  the  ancient 
Heathens,  no  Isfs  than  the  Jews,  acknov/ledged  but  one 
flip  re  me  Being. 

*  The  law  forbids,  it  will  be  faid,    fuch  fubordinate 

*  worfliip,   as  terminates  on  idols;   not  that  which  has 

*  Chrifl.  for  its  objecl.' — But  when  the  law  prohibits  that 
kind  of  worfliip,  it  does  it  in  general  teims  ;  in  fuch 
terms  as  foibid  all  forts  of  fubordinate  worfliip,  without 
any  exception. -Ouradverfaries,  perhaps,  may  fay,  *  There 

*  being  idols  and  thefc  idols  becoming  the  objeds  of  wor- 

*  fliip,  render  that  worfliip  idolatrous.'  But  they  fliould. 
rather  fay,  There  is  an  objecb  woifliippcd  :  this  v/orfliip, 


SECT.   II.  82  CHAP.   V, 

being  given  to  an  objedl  which  does  not  deferve  it, 
renders  the  objeâ:,  though  innocent  in  itfelf,  an  idol. 
The  God  of  Ifrael  exprefling  himfelf  in  a  generp.l  way, 
and  forbidding  to  worfhip  any  thing  in  heaven  or  on 
earth,  after  the  manner  of  the  Heathen  ;  it  is  evident, 
that  fo  foon  as  we  addrefs  fubordinate  worfnip  to  any 
thing  in  heaven  or  earth,  vv'e  make  an  idol  of  it. —  It  is 
worthy  to  be  remarked,  that  the  law  docs  not  only  fay, 
**  Thou  flialt  have  no  other  gods  ;"  but  **  thou  flialt 
*'  have  no  other  gods  before  me  ;"  which  Teems  prin- 
cipally to  forbid  fubordinate  worfliip. 

The  prophets  were  ignorant  of  fubordinate  v/orfhip. 
They  had  no  inflance  of  it  before  thtir  eyes,  but  wh:it 
tljey  detected  as  idolatrous.  They  never  heard,  they 
never  fpeak,  of  any  fuch  thing  as  lawful  ;  or  as  having 
any  exigence  among  the  pure  worfhippers  of  Jehovah. 
Nay,  they  laugh  at,  they  defpifc  all  fubordinate  gods  ; 
becaufe  they  cannot  conceive  how  any  man  can  worfhip 
an  objed  that  *'  created  not  the  heavens,"  and  caufeth 
not  •'  the  rain  to  defcend  upon  the  earth  :"  which 
they  would  not  have  done,  had  they  known  that  there 
was,  or  ever  would  be,  a  fubordinate  God,  to  v.hom 
adoration  fîiould  be  paid. — '  But  the  prophets,    1  fuall 

<  be   told,    chaige    the    people    with    idolatry,  becaufq 

<  they  addrtfTed  fupvcme  worfliip  to  gods  wlio  crcr.ted 
*  not  the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  Quite  a  miflake  : 
for  the  Heathens  did  not  ^^y  fupreme  worPnip  to  their 
fubordinate  divinities  ;  becaufç  they  did  not  look  upou 
them  as  the  fource  of  being  and  the  original  of  all  good  ; 
Jupiter  being  the  only  god,  whom  they  acknov.'lcdged 
under  thofe  exalted  charaflers. 

Nor  were  tlie  opoj'.ks  acquainted  with  fubordinate 
worfhip,  as  appears  from  the  following  confiderations. 
They  confidered  ail  worfhip,  even  that  which  was  only 
external,  and  could  net  be  efkemed  as  addrefTed  to  a 
fupreme  obje^ft,  when  given  to  a  creature,  as  doing 
iniinite  prejudice  to  the  glory  of  the  Cieator. — When 
Cornelius  fdl  down  at  Peter's  feet,  he  did  not  lock  upon 


6ECT.  île  uj  CHAP.  Vi 

him  as  the  Suprc:ne  Eiin^.  Though  he  woiHiipped 
him,  it  was  not,  it  couhl  not  be,  as  the  Original  of  all 
good,  and  the  Ruler  ct'  all  worlds.  He  knew  very 
well  that  Peter  was  but  a  man  ;  for  thj  angel  had  told 
him  fo,  when  he  commmdcd  him  to  fend  for  that 
apodle  from  Joppa.  This  worfliip,  therefore,  could  be 
no  more  than  JuborJimiâf  and  even  t'Mt  in  a  very  low^ 
degree.  The  devout  Centurion  could  not  pofiîbîy  think 
of  wor {hipping  a  man,  called  Si-iuTTy  furnamcd  Peter, 
who  had  lodged  at  the  houfe  of  another  Simori  a  tanner, 
with  the  fame  adoration  which  he  paid  to  God.  And 
yet,  as  worHiip,  even  exlemal  woiHiip,  was  an  a(5l 
determined  by  cuilom  to  exprefs  that  honour  which  is 
due  to  none  but  the  Great  Supreme  ;  Peter  did  not  fo 
confider  the  good  intention  of  Cornelius,  as  to  receive  it. 
No  ;  with  an  holy  emotion  he  faid  to  his  admiring  and 
revering  friend  ;  *'  Stand  up  !  I  myfelf  aîfo  am  a  man.*' 
— Hence  it  follows,  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  wordiip  any 
but  the  true  God.  For  Peter,  from  a  regard  to  the 
glory  of  God,  refufes  and  rejecls  with  abhorrence,  that 
worfaip  which  Cornelius  was  difpofed  to  give  him  ;  by 
faying,  *'  I  am  a  man  ;"  I  am  not  God.  Confequently, 
fubordinate  worlhip  is  contrary  to  the  glorj'  of  God. — 
Hence  alfo  it  is  manifelè,  that  whoever  is  a  mere  man 
by  nature,  ought  neither  to  require,  nor  to  receive 
rehgious  wormip,  whether  fuprcme  or  fubordinate. 

More  fully  to  prove  and  illuflrate  this  conciufion,  1 
would  afiv  ;  What  is  it  that  hinders  Peter,  on  thiti 
occaGon,  from  accepting  v/orfliip  ?  It  mufl  be,  either  the 
refpe^fl  which  he  has  for  God,  or  that  which  he  has  fol^ 
Jefus  ChrilT:.  If  the  forme);  he  mud  confïder  what  is 
zwWQàfurhjrdînate  worfnip,  when  addrefT^d  to  a  creature, 
as  injurious  to  the  glory  of  God  :  and  if  fo,  not  only 
Peter,  but  Jefus  Chrill  himfelf,  if  he  be  a  mere  creature, 
is  bound  to  refufe  it.  If  the  latter^  he  fhculd  not  have 
{•^id,  as  the  reafon  of  his  rejedingir,  "  I  alfo  am  a  man:" 
becaufe  Chrii},  of  whofe  honour  he  is  fo  jealous,  is  alfo 
a  man,  and,  by  nature,  no  more  than  a  man.     Bit  the 


jg£CT.  îï.  8^4  CHAP.  V» 

anoflle  here  tells  the  Centurion  what  he  /x,  only  to  let 
him  knov/  what  is  due  to  him.  He  calls  himfelf  ^  m^/7, 
to  inform  him,  that  if  any  mere  man  fliould  claim,  or 
accept,  this  kind  of  worfliip,  he  would  greatly  diflionour 
God. — And  though  the  charaOer  of  Peter,  as  an 
ambafTidor  of  God,  deferved  extraordinary  honours  ; 
though  it  was  under  this  notion  that  Cornelius  confidered 
Jjin-j,  and  under  this  idea  that  he  attem.pted  to  worfliip 
him  ;  yet  he  rejected  it  with  deteftation,  as  an  impious 
infringement  on  the  rights  of  Jehotah,  without 
affigning  any  rcafon  but  this,  "  I  alfo  am  a  man."  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  and  by  the  condud  of  Peter,  it  is 
eftablifhed  as  a  general  principle  ;  That  no  man, 
though  a  mefTenger  of  God  ;  that  no  mere  man,  what- 
ever title  he  may  bear,  ought  to  be  honoured  with 
religious  worfhip. — In  a  word.  If  the  regard  v;hich 
Peter  has  for  Jefus  Chrifl,  hinder  him  from  fharing  in 
that  worfhip  v.hich  belongs  to  the  great  Redeemer  ;  tlie 
refped  which  Jefus  ought  to  have  for  the  Supreme 
Being,  (hould  prevent  him  from  partaking  in  the  honours 
cf  religion  with  the  true  God. 

Nor  did  the  angels  know  of  any  fubordinate  worfhip, 
when  John  had  his  prophetic  vifions  in  the  ifle  of  Patmos. 
If  they  had  been  acquainted  v;ith  it,  at  leafl:,  if  they 
had  confidered  it  as  lawful  ;  that  holy  intelligence,  who 
converfed  with  the  beloved  difciple  and  fhewed  him  fo 
many  wonderful  objeds,  would  either  not  have  refufed 
thofe  honours  which  the  apoftle  was,  once  and  agaii>, 
defirous  of  giving  to  him  ;  or  have  rejected  them  on 
different  principles.  For  none  can  fuppofe  that  the 
amazed,  delighted,  and  revering  apoftle,  miftook  the 
angel  for  the  Great  Supreme.  He  would  have  worfhij>- 
ped  his  celeflial  informant,  becaufe  he  was  the  angel  of 
God  ;  not  becaufe  he  took  the  fervant  for  the  eternal 
Sovereign.  The  angel,  however,  not  krowing  of  any 
religious  worfhip  which  might  be  addrefTcd  to  a  mere 
creature,  fays  j  *'  See  thou  do  it  cot  ! — WorOiip  God.'* 


SECT.   II.  S$  CHAP.  V. 

AfTerting,  in  the  cleared  manner,  that  all  r/^^rfliip  mud 
be  paid  to  God,  and  to  him  only. 

Oncemore:  jEsusCHRisThimfelf  wasnot  acqui^intcd 
with  this  didindion,  nor  knew  any  thing  of  fubordinate 
worfliip,  when  he  was  tempted  of  the  devil.  Satan,  when 
he  tempted  our  Lord  to  worfliip  him,  did  not  pretend 
to  be  the  true  God  ;  confcquentlv,  he  did  not  folicit 
Jefus  to  worfliip  him,  as  fuch.  Foi  he  plainly  intimated, 
that  there  was  one  fuperior  to  him  ;  one  from  whom  he 
had  received  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory 
of  them.  The  devil,  then,  defired  to  be  honoured 
v;ith  fubordinate  v/orfliip.  But  Chrift  rcjedls  wiih 
abhorrence  his  blafphemous  attempt,  and  ftews  the 
iniquity  of  it,  by  adducing  that  precept  out  of  the  law  ; 
*'  Thou  Hialt  worfliip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him 
*'  ONLY  fiialt  thou  ferve."  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
this  command  forbids  us  to  v/orfliip  any  one  befides  the 
God  of  Ifiael,  either  with  a  fupreme,  or  a  fubordinate 
worfliip  :  or,  rather,  that  this  didinction  has  no  founda- 
tion in  Scripture;  but  is  calculated  to  difguifc  blaf|  hemv, 
and  vindicate  idolatry. 


H 


SECT.   11.  86  CHAP.   VI- 


CHJPTER     VL 

The  cliarac^ers  of  Jciiovyva's  glory  in  tlic  ancient  Oracle», 
applied  to  JEsus  CiiKis  r  ;  and  ths  argument  ariHng  frona 
that  application  illudrated. 

1.  HE  apoflles  and  evangelhls,  when  aflerting 
the  dignity  of  their  Divine  MaRer,  made  no  fcruple  or 
itppiying  to  him  thofe  oracks  of  the  Old  Tedament, 
•which  exprefs  the  charaders  of  God's  eflsntial  glory. 
Of  this  various  indanees  have  been  ah-eady  produced, 
which  we  fhall  examine  more  particularly  hereafter  : 
and  our  adverfaries  themfelves  do  not  deny  it,  fince 
they  pretend  that  thofe  oracles  are  applied  to  Chrift,  by 
way  of  alluiion,  or  accommodation. — But  it  is  very 
furprifing  and  ablolutely  unaccountable,  that  the  apoftlcs 
fhould  make  fuch  applications  to  him,  if  he  be  not  the 
true  God.  For  common  fcnfe,  one  would  have  thought, 
v/as  fullicient  to  inform  then»,  that  fuch  things  as  v/ere 
fpolcen  only  of  the  Creator,  ought  not  to  be  applied  to 
;i  mere  creature.  For  it  was  never  known  that  fuch 
applications  were  made  without  being  cenfured,  by  thofe 
that  feared  God,  of  impiety  and  blafphemy.  The 
ancient  Heathens,  indeed,  were  not  very  fcrupulous  ir\ 
this  refpeét  :  for  it  was  common  with  them  to  debafe 
God  and  to  exalt  creatures,  by  attributing  to  them  the 
jdorics  of  the  D  jity  ;  and  in  this  the  prodigious  excefs 
of  their  fuperftition  principally  confided.  Their  exam- 
ple, however,  ought  to  have  no  weight  with  us  ;  as  it 
was,  we  may  aff-ire  ourfelves,  deteded  by  the  apodles. 
For  they  had  been  indruâed  in  the  fchool  of  the 
prophets  ;  they,  therefore,  were  incapable  of  falling 
into  fuch  a  miltake.  The  care  of  the  prophets,  in  that 
refpefl,  is  very  remarkable.  Always  jealous  for  the 
glory  of  God,  they  are  perpetually  cautious  that  the 
Creator   fhould  not  be  confounded    with  any   of  his 


SECT.  II.  ^J  CHAP.   VI. 

creatures.  And  being  thus  confhmtly  upon  their  guard, 
they  never  apply  the  charadcriilics  of  Jehovah's  glory 
to  any  mere  creature. 

It  cannot,  1  think,  be  fuppofcd,  that  thofe  exalted 
and  defcriptive  charaâers,  which  the  apollles  give  of 
Jefus  Chrilf,  are  more  facred,  or  more  peculicr  to  him, 
than  thofe  which  the  projihets  gave  of  the  God  of  Ifrael. 
As,  therefore,  wc  fhould  not  dare  to  a])ply  tf  e  peculiar 
chaia(^lcrs  of  Chrilt,  to  any  of  his  ap6rtlcs  ;  fo  a  fin.ilar 
reafon  ought  to  hinder  us,  ought  to  have  hindered  all, 
from  applying  the  diflinguilhing  charatrf  rs  of  [chovsli 
to  jcfus  Chrii'J,  if  he  be  not  the  true  God. —  A  man 
would  be  jullly  charged  v/ith  blafphemy,  were  he  to 
apply  to  Peter,  for  inllance,  the  following  names, 
characters,  and  woi  ks  o^  Jefus  Chrift.  Were  he  to  c?!i 
him,  "  The  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  fin 
**  of  the  world — Our  king,  prophet,  and  m\d\  ;  the 
*'  high-prieft  of  our  pi  ofejfion,  and  a  prieif  for  ever  after 
**  the  order  of  Melchifedeck — The  Prince  of  peace — 
*'  Immanuel — The  Word — The  Alpha  and  Omc^^n, 
«*  the  Firlt  and  the  Lalt— The  Lion  of  the  tribe  "of 
*'  Judah — .The  Saviour  and  Redeemer — The  Son  of 
**  God,  his  own  Son,  and  his  only  begotten  Son" — 
Were  he  to  proceed  andaflert.  That  Peter  "  redeemed 
*'  the  church  with  his  own  blood — That  he  bare  our 
«*  fins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree — That  we  have 
«'  redemption  through  his  blood,  and  are  reconciled  to 
*'  God  by  his  death — That  there  is  no  name  but  that  of 
*'  Peter,  by  which  we  mult  be  faved — That  Peter  is 
*'  made  unto  us  of  God,  wifdom  and  righteoufnefs, 
**  fandification  and  redemption — That  Peter  dwellctii 
♦'  in  our  hearts  by  faith — And,  that  there  is  no  condem- 
*'  nation  to  them  that  are  in  Peter" — Were  anv  one 
thus  to  fpeak  of  that  great  apofUe,  what  v.'ould  tl!<: 
Chriftian  world  fay  of  him  ?  They  would  certainly  call 
him,  either  a  madman,  or  a  blaiphemer. — Nor  would 
their  indignation  againrt:  his  conduél  be  much  abated, 
were  they  to  hear  him  once  and  agaia  acknov/iedg*  ; 
H  2 


SECT.  !!•  SS  CHAP.  VI- 

*  That  Jefiis  Chri(l  is  greater  than  Peter.*  For  they 
would  bcldJy  tell  him,  that,  by  fuch  a  declaration,  he 
only  contradided  himfelf,  and  tacitly  confefTed  his 
blalphemy. — Nor  would  it  avail  fuch  an    one  to   fay, 

*  That,  the  application  he  makes  of  the  charadcrs  and 

*  aitiibutes,  the  grace  and  works,  of  Jefus  Chrill:   to 

*  Peter,  is  only  by  way  of  aUu/ion  and  occcmmodalion.' 
For  it  would  quickly  be  replied  ;  Such  allufions  and 
îLccommodations  are  impious  ;  are  abfolutely  unwarrant- 
ab'C  ;  are  pregnant  with  blaf)hemy. 

If,  then,  an  application  of  the  principal  charaders, 
attributes,  and  works  of  our  Lord  to  Peter,  would  be 
confidered  and  treated  by  Chriftians,  as  abominable 
biafphemy;  it  muit  be  a  much  higher  degree  of  that 
malignant  crime,  to  apply  the  names  and  titles,  the 
attributes  and  wciks  of  the  Suprem.e  Being,  to  Jefus 
Chrill,  if  he  be  not  a  Divine  Perfon.  Nor  is  it  any 
wonder  that  the  Jews  fliould  fo  confider  it.  For  if  the 
difproportion  between  Jefus  and  Peter  be  great,  that 
which  is  between  Chrift  and  God  is  inconceivably 
greater,  according  to  the  principles  of  our  opponents  ; 
û\^  former  being  iînite,  the  latter  unbounded.  Confe- 
q-iently,  the  blafphemy,  in  one  cafe,  is  infinitely,  greater 
tiiuii  tliHt  in  the  other. 

The  impiety  of  ajjplying  the  chara6iers  of  Chrifl  to 
Peter,  will  appear  in  a  illU  ftronger  light,  if,  in  the 
cafe  fuppofcd,  he  who  makes  the  application  be  con- 
iidered  as  knowing,  that  this  quedion,  Is  Peter  equal  to 
Jdlis  Chrill?  had  been  debated  on  very  important 
occafions  ;  and  that  he  forefaw  this  error  would  become 
general  in  the  world  ;  fo  that,  for  many  ages,  Peter 
would  bear  the  names  and  receive  the  honours  of  Jefus 
Chvifl.  In  fuch  a  cafe,  he  would  be  guilty  of  prodigious 
impiety  indeed  ;  the  confequences  forefeen  being  fo 
injurioi's  to  the  honour  of  Chrill,  and  fo  fatal  to  the 
fouls  of  men. — This,  it  is  obvious,  is  applicable  to  the 
apollles.  For  they  were  not  ignorant  that  this  queflion, 
\i  Jefus  Chrift  equal  v/ith  God?  had  been  debated^ 


SECT.  II.  89  CHAP.   VI. 

Nay,  they  well  knew,  that  it  was  under  a  cliarge  of 
pretented  blalj  hemy,  for  claiming  an  eq.iality  wiih  God, 
that  the  Jtus  had  perfecuted  their  Mafter  and  procured 
his  death.  And  as  they  forefaw  that  falfe  teachers 
would  atife  in  future  ages,  and  were  able  to  defcribe 
their  heretical  doc^lrines  ;  they  could  not  be  ignorant, 
that  vad  multitudes  profelTing  ChrilHanity  would  fo 
apoflatize,  as  to  put  Jtfus  Chrid,  a  mere  creature,  in 
the  place  of  God.  But  if  they  knew  and  forefaw  thefe 
tilings,  ought  not  a  zealous  regard  for  the  honour  of 
God,  and  a  tender  concern  for  the  fouls  of  men  ;  to 
have  prevented  their  applying  thofe  oracles  of  the  Old 
Tefiament,  which  exprefs  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  in 
contradidinflion  to  that  of  his  creatures,  to  Jcfas  Chriîl  ? 
— Who,  then,  on  the  principles  of  them  we  oppofe,  can 
julHfy  the  conduv5l  of  the  apoiUcs,  in  fo  doing;  Who 
can  exculpate  Jefus  himfclf,  by  whofe  command  and 
infpiration  they  wiote  ?  Who  can  jultly  condemn  the 
conduét  of  the  Sanhedrim,  who  arraigned  him  for 
blafphemy  and  caufcd  him  to  end  his  life  on  the  crofs, 
as  an  enemy  to  God  and  a  deceiver  of  men  ?  Or  who 
can  blame  the  modern  Jews  for  continuing  in  their 
infidelity. 


«3 


90 


SECTION     III. 


If  Jesus  CH^^TST  be  not  the  true  God,  of 
the  fame  elTence  with  his  Father,  He  and 
his  apoilles  haye  led  us  into  a  compHcattd 
and  pernicious  error. 


CHAPTER    L 

The  principles  -which  we  oppofe,  obfcure,  depreciate,  deftrry, 
thofc  exitlted  ideas  which  Jesus  gives  us  of  his  Father's  Lcvc, 
and  of  his  own  Compafiion  to  firifiil  men. 

i  HE  general  reafcn  of  the  leading  propofition 
in  this  Seftion,  is,  The  facred  writers  of  the  New 
Tefiament  have  not  fpoken  of  Chrift,  as  of  a  mere 
creature  ;  though  they  were  perfedly  well  informed, 
as  to  his  true  dignity  and  real  charader. — But  it  is 
r.ecefiary  that  I  (hould  be  more  particular.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  prove  and  illulbate  the  propofition,  I  (hall 
endeavour  to  (hew,That  the  Socinian  hypothefis  obfcures, 
depreciates,  and  dedroys,  thofe  exalted  ideas  which 
Jefus  Chrift  gives  us  of  his  Father's  love,  and  of  his  own 
compaffion  to  finful  men — That  it  fo  weakens  the  idea, 
\^hich  is  given  us  in  the  New  Tefiament,  pf  the  greatnefs 
of  the  myftery  of  godlinéfs,  that  one  cannot  help 
fufpeaing  the  apoftles  of  a  defign  to  deceive  us,  by 
bombaftic  expreflions — That  it  deprives  Jefus  Chrift  of 
his  honour,  by  making  him  poflefs,  in  a  metaphorical 
fenfe,  thofe  titles  which  are  given  him  in  one  that  is 
proper— Ihat  i;  fuperfedes  the  neceility  and  vacates 


SECT.  III.  91-  CHAP.   I. 

the  death  of  Chiift — And,  that  it  renders  the  language 
of  Scripture  oblciire  and  faife,  abfurd  and  impious. 

1  affirm,  then,  that  the  Socinian  hypothefis  obfciires, 

depreciates,    and  dcltroys    thofe    exaked   ideas  which 

Jefus  gives  us   of  his  Father's  love,   and  of  his  own 

compaflion  to  finfui  men.    It  is  nianifeft,  that  the  grand 

benefit  and  the  higheft  evidence  of  the  Father's  love 

confill,  in  "  giving   his  only  begottkn  Son,"  and 

in    delivering   him    up   to    death    for    us.      This    gift, 

according  to  the  Holy  Ghofl,  includes  all  others.      For 

the  apofUe  fays;   *'  He  that  fpared  not  his  own  Son, 

*«  — how  (hail  he  not  with  him  alfo  freely  give  us  all 

**  things?" — But  if  Jefus  be  by  nature  a  mere  man,  cr  a 

mere  creature,  the  gift  mufl:  be  of  incomparably  lels  value 

than    the    flilvation    of  mankind  :    and,    Co    far    from 

wondering  that  God  has  purchafed  our  falvation  at  fo 

{/ear  a  rate,  we  have  reafon   to    be  furprifed  that   he 

fliould  procure  it  at  Co  fma/I  ?.n  expence.     For  however 

holy  and  excellent  we  may  fcippofe  Jefus  to  be,  yet  we 

mu(t  allow,  that  an  innumerable  multitude  of  immortal 

beings,  who  love  God  with  all  their  hcarrs  and  fervs 

him  with  all   their  powers,   will  be,  in  the  day  of  their 

confummation,  a  more  delightful  obje£l  in  the  eye  of 

Omnifciencc  than  Jefus  Chrifl,  if  he  be  a  mere  creature. 

The  falvation  of  mankind,  therefore,  is  more  precious 

than  the  life  of  Chrill  ;  efpecially  when  it  is  confidered, 

that  in  lofing  his  life,  he  did  not  lofe  his  holinefs. — But 

the  comparifon  here,  does  not  only  lie  between  Chrift 

and  the  multitudes  recieemed  by  him  ;   it  extends  alfo 

to  the  temporal  life  v/hich  he  loft  for  them,  and  that 

eternal  l'ÛQ  which  they  acquire  by  him     The  rcfult,  then, 

of  fuch  a  comparifon  mull  be,  that  the  gift  of  Chrift, 

as  a   mere  creature,   is  of  much  lefs  value  than   the 

falvation  of  mankind. 

But,  if  Jefus  Chrift  be  God-man,  the  intimate  union 
of  the  humanity  with  his  Divinity,  may  well  be  con- 
ceived to  render  his  life  and  blocd  infinitely  precious. 
Of  this  we  may  affure  ourfelres,  by  reafoning  from  the 


SECT.   III.  gi  CHAP.   I. 

lefs  to  the  greater.  A  clod  of  the  valleys,  for  in  (lance, 
is  of  no  worth  or  digu'iy  :  we  do  not  care  how  many 
blows  it  receives-:  it  muxes  no  difference  to  us,  whether 
it  be  preferved  or  deltroyed.  But  if  it  be  united  to  a 
fpirit,  the  union  will  immediately  confer  a  dignity  upon 
it;  fo  as  to  give  a  proportional  value  to  iis'  ;îdions.  or 
fufferings,  on  the  behalf  of  anyone.  Then  fuppoie  it  exalt- 
ed to  an  union  with  the  Divine  efTence,  and  its  intimate 
relation  to  God  will  render  its  vicarious  obedience  and 
fufferings  of  infinite  worth — Or  thus;  If  the  fufferings 
of  a  perfon  of  quality  be  of  more  value  than  thofe  of  a 
peafant;  if  thofe  of  a  king's  fon,  than  thofe  of  a  perfon 
of  quality  ;  and  if  thofe  of  a  king  himfelf,  than  thofe 
of  his  own  fon  ;  it  follows,  if  we  proceed  in  this 
gradation  ad  infitiitum^  and  can  find  a  perfon  whofe 
dignity  has  no  bounds,  his  fufferings  will  be  of  infinite 
value. — Such,  according  to  our  hypothefis,  is  Jesus 
Christ  :  for  he  is  "  God  manifell  in  the  fîefh.'*  In 
all  his  fufferings,  and  in  the  depth  of  his  humiliation, 
he  polTefled  the  glories  of  the  Godhead  ;  which  enno- 
bled and  dignified,  beyond  conception  and  beyond 
bounds,  all  that  he  did  and  all  that  he  underwent  for 
the  falvation  of  finncrs.  Such  a  Saviour,  being  the  gift 
of  the  Divine  Father  to  miferable  men,  mufl  be  a  prefent 
of  infinite  value,  and  could  proceed  from  nothing  fhort 
of  infinite  lore. 

But,  after  all  that  can  be  faid  for  the  contrary 
fentiment,  a  man  is  but  a  man  ;  and  we  fliould  exalt 
the  mercy  of  God  at  a  childifh  rate,  were  we  to 
exclaim  ;  *  Unfpeakable  love!  unbounded  mercy  !  which 

•  gave  the  temporal  life  of  a  mere  many  for  the  eternal 

•  falvation  of  mankind  !'  Nor  would  an  exclamation  of 
talis  kind  be  much  more  pertinent,  on  the  Arian 
hypothefis.  There  muft  neceffarily,  therefore,  be  ft 
more  exalted  meaning  in  thefe  and  fimilar  exprefTions  ; 
•*  In  this  was  manifeTted  the  love  of  God  towards  us, 
**  becaufe  that  God  fent  his  only  begotten  Son 
^  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through   him — 


6ECT.  III.  ^93  CHAP.  1, 

**  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
*'  BEGOTTEN  Sos" — Thcre  muit,  I  fay,  be  a  more 
exalted  meaning  in  them,  than  that  which  is  given  to 
them  by  our  opponents. 

When  Paul  fays,  God  "  fparcd  not  his  own  Son  j" 
the  meaning  is,  that  he  gave  us  the  life  of  his  Son. 
Tlien,  reaioning  from  the  gre;i.tcr  to  the  Icfs,  he 
conchides,  that  God  will  give  us  all  other  bleilings: 
bccaufe  the  spodle  confidcrs  the  life  of  Chrift,  as  more 
valuable  and  more  precious  than  all  things  befides. 
But  is  there  any  proportion — let  comn",on  fenfe  be  the 
judge — is  there  any  proportion  between  the  temporal 
life  of  a  man  like  curfelves,  or  of  any  mere  creature, 
and  the  eternal  felicity  of  s.11  the  redeemed  ?  Or,  caa 
any  thing  be  more  weak,  inconclulive,  and  falfe,  than 
the  apoflie's  reafoning,  if  the  principles  of  our  adverfaries 
be  true  ? 

They  will  fay,  *  God  manifefts  his  love,  by  giving 
*  us  eternal  life  loUh  his  Son.*  I  reply.  The  affertioa 
includes  two  things  ;  everlafling  life,  and  the  \vay  in 
•which  it  is  granted  ;  that  is,  by  the  miniltry  of  Jefus 
Chrifl".  The  former^  being  vouchfifed  to  guihy  and 
miferable  creatures,  is  undoubtedly  an  evidence  of 
Divine  love  :  the  latter  is  but  very  weakly  expreffive  of 
any  fuch  thing.  For  it  cannot,  furely,  be  confider*d 
.as  a  great  and  rvonrîjrful  effort  of  God's  lore,  to  g|râ 
the  temporal  iifi  of  one  rr.an,  for  the  eternal  life  uî 
militons. 

Let  me  illiiilrate  the  point.  In  the  deliverancf  of 
the  ancient  Ifraelites  from  Egyptian  bondage,  two  tisirgs 
may  be  rem;.ir4.cd.  God  redeems  them  from  the  fl*^very 
under  which  they  groaned  ;  and,  previous  to  theii* 
deliverance,  he  commands  them  to  kill  the  pafchftl' 
lamb,  and  to  fprinkle  its  blood  on  the  door-poJfS  cf 
their  houfes.  'Fhe  love  of  God  to  the  tribea.of  J-'CoL-, 
in  granting  iher.i  deliverance,  is  greatly  to  be  adr. 
for  they  were  reduced  to  a  fad  extremity,  and  hitJ 
dwilrcd  ta  be  reliçved.     But  we  Ihould  think  ouiftlvcs 


SECT.  III.  94  CHAP.  I. 

much  abufed,  if  any  one  endeavoured  to  perfuadc  us; 
That  the  love  of  God  to  them  appeared  in  a  ivonderful 
manner ^  becaufe  the  blood  of  a  lamb  was  the  fign,  to 
the  deftroying  angel,  to  fpare  their  firlt-born  ;  or,  becaufe 
the  facrifice  of  the  pajovcr  was  a  mean,  in  the  hand 
of  God,  of  working  out  their  deHverdnce.  Should  any 
one  exclaim  ;  *  Behold,  how  God  loved  the  Ifiaelites! 

*  He  fo  loved  them,  that  he  put  a  lamby  nay,  many  lambs 

*  10  death,  that  he  might  redeem  them  from  flavery  Î* 
v/ould  you  not  think  him  delirious  ? — But  here  1  Ihall 
be  reminded,  '  That  the  life  of  Chrift,  as  a  mere  man, 

*  is    incomparably   more   precious    than    the    life  of   & 

*  facrifice  under  the  law.'  Suppofe  it  be  ;  yet,  as  the 
life  of  a  lamb  bears  no  proportion  to  the  temporal 
deliverance  of  the  Ifraelites;  the  temporal  lifeof  Jefus, 
as  a  mere  man,  or  a  mere  creature,  can  bear  no 
proportion  to  the  eternal  life  of  mankind.     Nay,  in  the 

former  of  thefe  two  cafes  tlicre  \î,  fome  proportion,  and  a 
comparifon  may  be  formed  ;  but  none  at  all  in  the 
latter.  For,  as  the  life  of  a  lamb  is  temporal,  fo  wae 
the  life  of  an  Ifi-aelite,  which  was  redeemed  by  it  ; 
and  it  mufl  be  allowed,  that  between  temporal  and, 
temporal  there  is  fome  proportion.  But  the  life  of 
Chrifi,  as  a  mere  creature,  is  temporal  and  of  a  limited 
worth  ;  whereas  the  life  he  purchafed  for  us,  is  eternal 
and  of  infinite  value  ;  between  which  there  is,  there  can 
be,  no  proportion. 

*  The  love  of  God  q;pears,  it  will  be  faid,  not  in 
'  giving  a  man,  fimj^ly  confidercd  ;  but  in  giving  one 

*  that  is  his  o'wn  Son.*  But  is  Jefus  the  Son  of  God  in 
z  proper,  or  in  ^figurative  fenfe  ?  If  Û\ç  former,  it  mufl 
be  by  eternal  generation,  which  is  that  for  which  we 
plead.  If  the  latter,  I  defire  to  be  informed,  Whether 
it  be  an  extraordinary  and  an  afloniQiing  effort  of  Divine 
Jove,  to  give  a  man  for  our  redemption,  who  is  the  Son 
of  God  only  hy  a  metaphor? — Suppofe  a  fovereign  vyerc 
obliged  to  deftroy  a  great  number  of  his  fubjeds,  to  aflcrt 
tlie  rights  of  juftice  and  maintain  the  honour  of  his  iawsi 


Sl!CT.  ÎIÎ.  95  CHAP.  I. 

except  fome  peiTon  be  found  worthy  of  being  admitted 
as  their  fubftitute,  who,  by  laying  down  his  life,  ftiall 
dehver  them  from  death.  Sujjpofe,  further,  that  this 
prince,  being  moved  with  companion,  fliould  engage  to 
give  the  life  of  his  own  fon  for  their  redemption  ;  you 
could  not  but  conceive  the  higheft  idea  of  his  mercy 
and  love,  to  his  ofTending  fubjeds.  But  if,  afterwards, 
you  Ihould  be  well  informed,  tJiat  he  did  not  give  his 
oivn  fen,  and  be  alfo  affurcd  that  he  never  bad^  properly 
fpeaking,  a  fon  of  his  own  ;  but  that  all  the  myltery  of 
this  afloniPning  love,  which  made  fuch  a  noife  in  the 
world,  confjflcd  in  this:  He  adopted  one  of  his  fubjedls; 
took  him  out  of  a  (late  of  extreme  indigence  ;  educated 
him  like  the  fon  of  a  prince  ;  determined  to  give  him 
up  to  death,  as  a  ranfom  for  his  pcrifliing  fubjeds  ;  and 
then,  if  it  were  pofiîble,  to  reward  his  luftcrings,  by 
making  him  the  heir  of  his  crown  ; — in  fuch  a  cafe,  it 
would  be  immediately  faid.  Though  the  condud  of  this 
prince  is  very  extraordinary,  and  though  his  clemency 
is  worthy  of  admiration,  in  pardoning  attainted  rebels, 
and  in  redeeming  thofe  who  deferved  to  perifh  ;  yet  it 
is  a  childilh  hyperbole  to  exclaim,   •  Behold,    how  he 

*  loved  his  kingdom  1    He  fo  loved  it,  that  be  gave  his 

*  Souy  his  ow:!  Son,  his  dearly  hzloved.,   and  only  bcgcttsn 

*  Son,  to  die  for  his  offending  fcibjeds  !' 

Still  more  fully  to  illuQrate  the  point,  we  may  borrow 
an  Inftance  from  the  facred  Scriptures.  The  offering  up 
of  Ifaac,  our  adverfaries  thfmfelves  allow,  was  a  type 
of  the  facrifice  of  Jefus  Chrid.  Ifaac,  the  delight  of 
his  father  and  his  only  fon,  was  bound  in  order  to  be 
facrificed  by  Abraham  himftjlf,  nctwithllanding  all  the 
yearnings  of  parental  bowels.  Thus  he  became  a 
lively  type  of  Chrifl  ;  of  Him,  who  is  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,  and  in  whom  he  takes  infinite  and  eternal 
delight.  Kim  did  the  Father  deliver  up  to  fufferings 
and  forrows,  to  agonies  and  death. — The  types,  which 
prefigured  the  death  of  Chrift,  all  agree  in  reprefenting 
him  as  fùifeîing  in  our  (lead  ;  as  the  ancient  facrifiçes 


CECT.   III.  96  CHAP.  I. 

were  fu'jflituted  in  ihe  place  of  thofe  for  whom  they 
were  ofTered,  Every  type,  notwithftandlng,  had  its 
particu];ir  relation,  by  which  it  is  diflinguiihed  from 
others.  Thus  the  blood  of  the  pafchal  lamb,  being 
fpiinkled  on  the  door-pods  of  the  Ifraelitifh  houfcs, 
fecured  the  inhabitants  from  the  fword  of  the  dedroyirg 
angel.  So  the  blood  of  Chrifl,  being  fprinkled  on  our 
heartô,  preferves  us  from  the  ftroke  of  Divine  jaflice. 
But  the  offering  up  of  Ifaac,  being  without  the  fliedding 
of  blood,  cannot  have  this  refemblance  with  Jefus  Chrifl, 
We  mud,  therefore,  look  for  another,  which  confids  in 
this:  As  Abraham  offered  up  his  only  fon,  fo  the 
Divine  Father  delivered  up  to  death  his  only  begotten 
Son. — Suppofe,  then,  any  one  were  to  perfuade  nnd 
convince  you.  That  Abraham  did  not  offer  up  his  only 
fon,  nor  his  oti'ii  fon  ;  but  took  the  fon  of  Ellczar,  gave 
him  the  name  of  Ifaac,  and,  if  you  will,  put  on  him 
the  cloaths  of  Ifaac  ;  you  would  immediately  forbear  to 
wonder  at  the  obedience  and  faith  of  the  renowned 
patriarch,  in  making  no  fcruple  to  facrifice  his  own  and 
only  fon. — We  have  been  wont  to  look  for  the  in:n^e 
only,  in  a  type,  and  for  the  realily,  in  its  acccmplifh- 
ment  :  but,  if  we  believe  our  adverfaries,  we  muft  invert 
this  order  ;  we  mufl  look  for  the  reality  in  the  type,  and 
the  image  in  its  accomjjfi/hment.  According  to  this  new 
mode  of  interpretation,  Abraham  performed  a  great  and 
wonderful  ad  of  obedience,  by  v/hich  his  faith  in  the 
promifes  and  his  love  to  God  have  been  rendered 
illudrious  to  all  generations  ;  for  he  offered  up  his  own 
fon,  his  dear  and  only  fon;  and  this  he  did  in  reality, 
not  in  appearance  only.  But  God,  in  delivering  up 
Jefus  to  death,  gives  us  only  ^ifervant^  whom  he  calls  his 
Son,  that  there  miglit  be  a  greater  appearance  of  love  in 
his  dying  for  us:  fo  that  thele  and  fimilar  expreffions, 
*'  He  fpared  not  his  own  Son,"  arc  ufed  with  little 
propriety  ;  are  vain  and  delufive. 

To  advance  the  dignity  of  Jefus  Chrift,  it  may,  per- 
haps, befaid  j  *  He,  whom  God  gave  to  be  our  Saviour, 


S£CT.   III.  97  CHAP.   I. 

*  is  the  heir  of  eternal  life.*  But  if  he  obtained  this 
exalted  honour,  in  confequence  of  his  TuffcTings,  and  as 
a  reward  of  his  death  ;  though  it  may  be  faiJ,  God 
crowns  his  fervant  to  reward  his  patience  ;  yet  it  fiill 
remains  a  truth,  that  he  gave  us  no  other  than  a  fervaut, 
for  the  redemption  of  men  ;  a  fervant  who  was  bound 
to  fulfil  the  Divine  law  for  hlwfclf,  being  then  but  an 
•*  unprofitable  fervant." 

The  fentiment  of  our  adverfaries  is  no  iefs  iniurious 
to  the  love  and  compaiTion  of  Chrifl,  as  revealed  in  the 
j^ofpel.  On  their  hypothefis,  it  is  depreciated,  cbfcured, 
!o!t  If  he  really  fuifereJ  in  cur  fenfe,  he  underwent, 
tor  a  feafon,  the  weight  of  the  Divine  curfe  ;  his  very 
foul  was  penetrated  by  the  fword  of  eternal  juilice  ;  and 
h:  felt  the  defertion  of  his  Father,  with  a  grief  propor- 
tional to  the  ardour  of  his  own  love.  Thus  his  love 
to  finners  is  equal  to  the  terrors  of  God*s  avenging 
juPiice  ;  under  the  firoke  of  which  he  agonized,  bled, 
and  died. — But  if  he  fuffered  only  in  the  fenfe  of  our 
Ldverfaries  ;  if  he  fuffered,  v/ithout  bearing  the  fins  of 
men,  or  fuftiining  the  punilliment  dcferved  by  thcni  ; 
there  was  nothing  in  his  death  dcferving  of  our  aflonifh- 
ment,  in  regard  of  his  love  to  us,  nor  any  thing  very 
heroical  in  it.  On  this  fuppofition,  Codrus,  king  of  the 
Athenians,  would  be  as  worthy  of  praife  as  Jefus  Chiifl. 
For  that  prince,  putting  himfelf  at  the  head  of  his  army 
i.giinft  the  enemy,  and  being  perfuaded,  by  the  anfwer 
of  fome  oracle,  that  if  he  himfelf  were  not  (lain  in  the 
battle,  his  fubjefts  could  not  gain  the  vi<5lory  ;  threw 
afide  his  royal  apparel,  put  on  ragged  cioaths,  went  into 
the  camp  of  the  enemy,  and  fiulhatcd  their  à&Ç\gn  to 
fave  him,  by  provoking  a  foldier  v/ho  flew  him.  The 
love  which  this  Athenian  prince  difcovered  for  his 
rabjevfls,  by  this  indance  of  his  concern  for  their  welfare, 
i'^  equal,  more  than  equal,  to  that  of  Chrifl  for  believers. 
The  former  freely  gave  up  his  life,  with  a  view  to 
preferve  his  country  from  flavery,  though  uncertain  as 
to  a  future  Hate  of  exifience  :  bat  the  latler  lays  dov/n 
I 


SLCT.  liî.  §8  CHA?.   tt 

his  life  in  abfolute  certainty  of  Jiving  again  after  three 
da.^'S,  and  of  reigning  for  ever  with  his  redeemed. 

0:-J  the  hypothefis  oppofed,  we  have  more  reafon  to 
ad.r.i-e  the  h^ve  of  God  to  Jefus  Chritt,  t!ian  that  which 
the  Valhcr  has  n^anifefted  to  us,  by  him.  God,  indeed, 
in  the  forcivencfs  of  our  fins  and  ihc  fîtlvation  of  our 
fouls,  manifells  his  igve  and  mercy  to  us  ;  and  this  we 
ought  to  acknowledge  v^ith  gratitude  and  joy.  But  in 
the  recomnenfe  he  makes  to  Jefus  Chrill:,  for  having 
llilfered  death,  by  making  hi;n  the  depoGtary  of  all 
Ipiritual  gifts  ;  by  granting  him  the  po'.ver  of  beflowing 
eternal  life,  and  cf  infiiding  eternal  death  ;  and  by 
conferring  upon  him  names  of  the  highefl  dignity  and 
exprefhve  of  Divine  authority  ;  he  manifeds  his  love  to 
him  in  an  unparalleled  way — in  fuch  a  manner  and  to 
fuch  a  degree,  that  Chiift  has  no  reafon  to  grudge  the 
pains  he  underwent  and  the  blood  that  he  fhed,  in  order 
to  arrive  at  fuch  a  flate  of  honour  and  hnpplnefs.  Nay, 
he  could  not  have  done  fo  well  for  himfelf  in  any  other 
way,  nor  fo  much  to  his  own  advantage.  So  that 
inllead  of  faying»  "  God  fo  loved  ihe  luorld,  that  he 
**  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  ;"  we  mud  fay,  *  God  fo 

*  joved  Jefus  Chrljl,  that,    after   he  had  honoured  him 

*  with  the  title  o:  his  Son,   he  gave  him  the  world,   and 

*  put  all  things  in  fubjection  to  him.'  Indead  of  faying, 
*♦  He  that  fpared  not  his  own  Son, — hovi^  ihali  he  not 
•*  with  h'lM  alfo  freely  give  us  all  things  j"  we  muft  fay, 

*  It  is  no  wonder  that  he  who  promifes  to  give  us  eternal 

*  lifs,  has  given  us  the  life  of  Jefus  Chr'tjl.* 

'  But  Jefus  Chrid,  they  will  fay,  is  the  mojier  and  we 

*  ^XQÙxtfi'rvants:  it  mu(r,  therefore,  be  an  extraordinary 

*  zS.  of  love,  for  a  mader  to  give  himfelf  up  to  death 
Von  purpofe  to  ranlom  flaves  ;  and  fuch  flaves  as  were 

*  his  enemies.* — Kere  it-  is  necefTary  to  confider  the 
Jove  of  the  Father,  and  the  love  of  the  Son,  in  a  feparate 
view.  The  Father  gives,  not  himfelf,  but  Jefus  Chrid, 
to  die  for  us  ;  and  Chrid,  it  is  manifeft,  cannot  be  called 
najlery  with  regard  to  God.     In  that  refpeft,  he  is  as 


6ECT.  ni.  99  CHAP  ï. 

mach  a  fervant  as  any  of  us  ;  he  being  God*s  own 
creature  and  fubjedl  to  his  laws.  God,  theicfore,  does 
not  give  a  mafler,  but  his  own  fervant.  He  is,  indeed, 
the  mod  perfect  of  all  that  ever  bore  the  charader,  yet 
he  is  but  a  fervant,  and  muft  be  fo  for  ever.  So  that 
though  the  love  of  God  is  manifefled,  in  faving  his 
enemies  from  dcferved  ruin  ;  yet  the  excellence  of  that 
love  is  far  from  appearing  in  the  gift  of  a  fervant — A 
fervant,  that  owes  his  exigence  to  a  fovereign  acft  of 
Divine  power,  and  all  his  ble/Tednefs  to  tlie  communica- 
tions ofDivine  favour-A  fervant,  who,  in  the  redemption 
offinncrs,  lofes  neither  his  holincfs,  happinefs,  norglorv  : 
who  lofes  his  life  but  for  three  days,  by  which  lofs  he 
obtained  the  empire  of  the  univerfe  ;  and  who,  confc- 
qiiently,  facrihces  no  great  matter  on  his  part.  For 
if  he  be  a  mere  creature  ;  if,  in  fufferirg,  he  have 
nothing  to  fear  but  death  itfelf  ;  if,  by  his  fuircringS;  lie 
obtain  eternal  felicity  for  thofe  he  redeems  ;  and  if  he 
is  to  be  highly  exalted  after  his  abafement,  where  is  the 
mighty  effort  of  his  love  ?  They  who  devoted  theni- 
felves  for  the  prefervation  of  their  country,  in  the 
certainty  of  dying,  and  the  uncertainty  of  living  after 
death  ;  obtaining  for  a  recompence  only  an  imaginary 
glory,  ^vhich  could  not  abate  the  horrors  of  diflolution  ; 
offered  much  greater  violence  to  themfelvcs  than  Jefus 
Chrift  did,  in  all  that  he  underwent.  Nay,  there  aie 
few  men  in  the  world  who  VvOuld  not  be  ready  to  fuffcr 
a  fimilar  death,  on  the  fame  conditions.  Where  is  the 
man  who,  if  it  were  in  his  power,  would  not  be  willing 
to  purchafe  eternal  happincfs  for  innum.eiable  millions 
of  his  fellow-creatures,  by  fuffering  the  pains  of  cruci- 
fixion ;  if  he  were  fure  to  rife  again  the  third  day,  and 
to  enjoy,  as  the  reward  of  his  fufferings,  immenfe  felicity, 
everlafling  honours,  and  dominion  overall  creatures? 
It  mull  therefore,  be  granted,  tliat  Jefus  Ghrift  is  not  a 
mere  man,  and  that  he  did  not  fufier  death  like  that  of 
other  men,  who  have  fallen  martyrs  to  the  truth  :  b-jt 
that  he  is  really  a  Divine  Perfon,  and,  being  incarnate; 
1  2 


SiLCT.   III.  100  CHAP.  I. 

^ied  under  the  Orcke  cf  eternal  juftice,  as  the  fubilitute 
of  the  guilty,  that  he  might  redeem  the  wretched  and 
iave  {ianers  from  the  wrath  to  come.  For,  let  our 
^.dverfarics  make  ufe  of  Vvhat  evafions  they  will,  they 
cannot  overturn  the  ào(51rine  of  our  Saviour's  Divinity, 
without  cfTcntiallyalterirg  theChridian  religion  ;  dellroy- 
ing  the  true  fenfe  of  the  ancient  types  ;  and  fo  depreciating 
the  love  o(  God  to  Tinners,  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and 
the  compagnon  of  Jcfus  in  dying  foi  them,  as  to  render 
il^e  itrongefl:  and  fined  expreflions  of  Scriptuie,  refpeding 
Divine  love,  little  better  than  arrant  bombafl,  4>r  mere 
fjights  of  imagination. 

Of  this  they  feein  to  be  confcious,  when  called  to 
explain  themfelves  on  the  fubjed  of  cur  heavenly 
Father's  love,  which  fo  flrongly  characlerizes  the 
covenant  of  grace.  *  God,  fay  they,  Wâs  the  Father 
'  of  ju(t  men  und<.-r  the  Jewifh  œconomy  ;  but  he  did 

*  not  appear  to  be  fo.  This  is  the  reafon  why  he  is 
'  feldom  called  Father,  in  the  Old  Teftament.     Nor  is 

*  he  fo  called  there,  becaufe  he  defigns  to  give  us  eternal 
*-  life  ;  but  becaufe  he  created  us,  and  beftows  upon  us 
*■  the  good  thinijs  of  time.' — The  Sociniaas  make  the 
wor.detful  love  of  God  to  confift,  in  his  giving  us  elernal 
life;  and,  in  fo  doir-g,  they  fpeak  agreeably  to  their  own 
luniimenis.  But  the  writers  of  the  New  Teflamenc 
Ipeak  a  different  language.  They  reprefent  the  infinite 
j;reatnefs  and  afiorilhing  excellence  of  God's  love,  as 
;;ppearing  in  the  gift  of  his  own  Son.  This  they 
confider  us  the  grand  evidence  that  God  loves  mankind. 
For  thus  they  fpeak,  and  thus  the  Redeemer  himfelf 
i peaks  ;  "  God  fo  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his 
*•  ONLY  BF.GOTTEN  SoN — In  this  was  manifcdtd  the 
*•  love  of  God,  becaufe  he  fent  his  oxLy  begotten 
«<  Son — He  that  fpared  not  his  ow^n  Son." — This, 
on  the  principles  of  our  oppofers,  is  an  infurmountabic 
difficulty.  When  they  prove  God's  love  to  m.en,  by 
his  giving  them  eternal  life,  we  underftand  them  very 
well  J  but  when  they  endeavour  to  prove  it,   by   the 


«EC T.   m.  loi  CilAP.  I. 

Father  giving  to  us  his  Son^  \ve  can  dilcein  but  little 
propriety,  or  truth,  in  what  thcy'fXy. 

They,    indeed,  tell  us,  *  That  God,  in  giving  his 

*  only  Son  to  be  a  facritlce  for  our  fins,  engages  hinifelf 

*  to  us,  by  a  pledge  of  inefHmable  value  ;  apd  jiromifes, 

*  not  only  to  forgive  our  tranigrelTions,  tut  alfo  to  give 

*  us  eternal  life.   And  by  the  nianifellation  of  this  great 

*  love  to  us,  when  we  were  his  enemies,  he  effectually 

*  draws  and  reconciles  us  to  himfelf.      And,  as  he  will 

*  not  forgive  our  fifis  but  by  means  of  his  Son,  who 

*  gives.hinifelf  fcr  ilu^ni  ;  he  thereby  engages  and  fabjeds 

*  us  to  his  Son  :  and  at  the  finie  time  declares  how 

*  much  he  ab!iors  thofe  fins,  which  mud  be  exy.iûtcd  by 

*  his  Son's  blood  ;  and  what  an  ave:  fion  we  alfo  ought 

*  to  have  for  thtm.' — Such  reafoning  is  only  calculated 
to  conceal  the  weaknefs  of  the  caufe  it  is  iiJtcnded  to 
defend.  For,  not  being  able  to  prove  the  giea'nefs  of 
God's  love  to  mankind,  in  that  v/ay  which  the  apoftles 
lake  to  exalt  it;  that  is,  "  by  the  gift  of  his  own 
*'  Son  ;"  our  adveifaries  prudently  coliecl  fuch  con- 
fiderations  as  are,  exclufive  of  i^s  grand  evidence,  beft 
fitted  to  difcover  the  Father's  afredion  for  us.  Thefe 
confiderations  are,  the  remiOion  of  fins  and  eternal  life; 
our  being  enemies  to  God,  when  he  formed  the  defign 
of  faving  us  ;  and  thofe  inducements  to  holinefs,  which 
are  drawn  from  the  method  in  which  our  fins  are 
forgiven.  Eut  thefe  confideraticns,  however  great  and 
noble  in  their  proper  places,  leave  thw  difficulty  before 
us  in  its  full  force.  For  our  inquiry  is,  Whether  God 
prefcnts  us  with  a  great,  a  wonderful,  an  incomparable 
gift,  when  he  gives  the  life  of  a.  mere  man  for  onr  fslvation  ? 
7^I)is  is  the  queflion  before  us;  nor  will  the  followers 
cf  Socinus  ever  be  able  to  fatisfy  eit4ier  themfclves,  or' 
others,  up6n  it. 

*  God,  fay  they,  in  giving  his  Son,  engages  himfelf, 
'  by  a  pledge  of  ineftimable  value,  to  give  us  eternal 

*  life.* — But  can  it  be  faid  of  a  mere  nian,  how  holy 
iiojcver  he  be,  that  he  is  a  pledge  of  inpjîimalk  value?  ' 

13 


SLOT.  111.  102  CHAP.   I. 

Or,  can  the  gift  of  his  temporal  life,  which  he  parts 
with  only  for  three  days,  be  confidered  as  a  pe;fe<fk 
f;;curity,  that  believers  fhall  enjoy  eternal  happinefs  : — 
Nay,  fuppofmg  Jefus  to  be,  by  nature,  the  moli:  exalted 
of  all  mere  .creatures  ;  would  it  be  logical,  would  it  be 
rational,  thus  to  argue  ?  If  God,  in  his  great  love, 
delivered  up  one  mere  creature  to  death,  we  may  fafely 
conclude  he  will  deliver  millions  from  it.  If  he  delivered 
up  one  to  temporal  fufferings,  he  will  certainly  deliver 
vafl  multitudes  from  eternal  torments.  If  he  gave  a 
perfon  infinitely  inferior  to  Himfelf,  to  endure  the  pains 
of  crucifixion  for  us  :  he  will  undoubtedly  giant  us  the 
enjoyment  of  Himfelf ^  to  make  us  completely  and  ever- 
ladingly  happy.  How  different  the  apofHe's  manner 
cf  arguing,  in  a  palHige  before  cited  !  *'  He  that  fpared 
*'  not  HIS  OWN  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  ail; 
'*  how  fliall  he  not  with  him  alfo  freely  give  us  all 
*'  things?*'  Whoever  duly  confiders  how  Paul  fpeaks 
of  Cod^s  own  Son,  of  us  all,  and  of  all  things  ;  cannot 
but  obferve  he  fuppofes  it  quite  evident,  that  there  is  no 
proportion  between  Jefus  Chrift  and  all  the  redeemed, 
though  taken  colledively  ;  nor  between  the  gift  of 
Him,  and  the  grant  of  all  other  bleflings.  But  fuch  a 
way  of  fpeaking  is  abfolutely  unaccountable,  is  highly 
abfurd,    on   the   hypothefes   oppofed. — *  God   engages 

*  himfelf,  by  a  pledge  of  inefUmable  value,  to  give  us 

*  eternal  life/  What,  was  it  the  capital  defign  of  the 
death  of  Chrift,  îiiat  it  (hould  be  a  pledge  of  our  future 
felicity  !  As  if  God  had  caufed  Mofes  to  die,  many 
years  before  he  did,  that  his  diffolution  might  be  a 
pledge  to  the  Ifraelites,  of  their  departure  out  of  Egypt 
and  fettlement  in  the  land  of  Canaan  ! — '  By  his  great 
'  love  to  us,  when  we  were  his  enemies.*  But  where 
is  this  great  love  ?  Is  the  life  of  a  mere  man  fo  precious  ? 
efpecially  of  one  who,  by  dying,  exchanges  a  flate  of 
fufferings  and  forrows,  for  a  ftate  of  honour  and  joy, 
which  he  obtains  for  himfelf  and  all  his  difciples.-— 

*  And  <i8  he  will  not  forgive  us  our  fins,  but  by  means 


SECT.   III.  103  CHAP.  1. 

*  of  his  Son,  who  gives  himfelf  for  them  ;  lie  ihtreby 

*  engages  and  fubjects  us  to  his  Son.'  This  very  nearly 
difcovers,  what  our  opponents  are  aihamed  to  own,  and 
yet  would  be  obliged  to  confefs,  were  they  to  reafon 
confequentiilly  from  their  own  principles  'I'he  con- 
fequence  I  mean,  is,  That  the  death  of  Chrift  is  more 
beneficial  to  himfelf,  than  it  is  to  us  ;  and,  that  Gcd 
has  done  more  for  him,  on  that  account^  than  he  does  for 
us.  We  ought,  therefore,  no  longer  to  fay  ;  "God  fo 
*'  loved  the  'world,  that  he  gave  his  Son  ;"  but,  *  God 
'  fo  loved  his  Son,  that  he  gave  him  the  world.'  For 
they  will  by  no  means  allow,  that  the  death  of  Chrill 
redeems  us  to  God.  They  peremptorily  alHrm,  and 
infill:  upon  it,  that  God  is  not  reconciled  to  finncrs  by 
Jefus  Chrift.  Hear  their  words  :  *  It  is  not  true,  that 
'  God,  being  provoked  againfl:  mankind,  was  reconciled 

*  by  Jefus  Chrid;  for  quite  the  contrary  may  be  affcrted. 

*  That    is,    God    being    appeafed    towards    mankind, 

*  lecoriciles  to  himfelf,  by  Jefus  Chri(t,  men  who  v.'ere 

*  provoked  againfl  him.'  If,  then,  Jefus  does  not 
reconcile  us  to  God,  does  not  make  our  peace  with 
him  ;  we  might,  for  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary, 
have  done  tolerably  well  without  him.  For  as  to  our 
natural  avcrfion  to  God,  he  could  eafily  have  removed 
it,  by  the  operation  of  his  grace  on  our  hearts,  without 
the  mediation  of  Chrift.  But  as  for  Jefus,  being  a 
mere  man,  he  could  not  have  expected,  nor  would  h^tve 
enjoyed,  a  fupernatural  glory  and  power,  if  he  had  not 
fignalized  his  obedience  by  his  death.  The  fruit, 
therefore,  which  we  reap  from  his  fufferings,  is  very 
fmall  ;  but  the  benefits  which  he  receives  from  them, 
are  very  great  ;  becaufe  it  is  in  virtue  of  his  obedience 
to  death,  that  he  becomes  the  head  of  men  and  angels. 
— *  He,  at  the  fame  time  declares,  how  much  he  abhors 

*  thofe  fins  v/hich  mufl  be  expiated  by  his  Son's  blood  ; 
'  and  what  an  averfion  we  alfo  ought  to  have  for  them.' 
But  if  Chrift  be  a  mere  man,  or  a  mere  creature,  his 
^ath  can  bave  but  Jittle  force  tç  convince  us,  how  much 


SECT.    III.  104  CHAP.   II. 

fin  is  the  objecft  of  God's  abhorrence.  The  inference, 
in  this  cafe,  wiil  rathtr  be  ;  There  is  no  reafon  that  we 
fhculd  make  any  great  fcruple  of  committing  li,n  ;  feeing 
it  may,  with  fo  much  eaie  and  at  fo  fniail  an  expence, 
be  expiated  :  for  the  blood  of  om  man  is  fafficient  to 
atone  for  the  fins  cf  m'tUhns, 


CUAFrER     IL 

I'l.t  doflrine  of  our  adverfaries  deftrcys  the  idea  -whlLh  the 
t^criptures  give  us,  of  the  Greatnefs  of  Gofpel  myfteiies,  and 
tne  Nature  of  true  Faith. 

l\^  the  principles  which  we  oppcfe,  exceed-' 
ingly  depreciate  the  love  of  God  and  the  compallion  of 
Jefus  to  f  nful  men  ;  fo  they  are  equally  unfavourable 
und  irrecoricileable  to  what  the  Scripture  fays,  about  tlie 
^rcaUiefs  of  gofpel-myileries,  and  the  nature  of  true  faiih. 
For,  if  Jefjs  Chrifl  be  a  mere  man,  who  can  underdand 
the  apoih'e  when  he  fays  ;  **  Without  controverfy,  great 

*'•   IS   THE    MYSTCRY   of   godlincfs  :     GOD   WAS     MANI- 

**  FEST  4N  THt  TLESH,  judificd  in  the  Spirit,  fcen  of 
••  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in 
<'  the  vvcild,  received  up  into  glory?" 

The  rnyftery  of  the  incarnation,  as  we  profefs  to 
believe  it,  is  great  and  fublime.  Such  it  is,  whether 
we  confider  the  ineffable  union  of  the  human  nature, 
■with  the  Divine  ;  or  the  marvellous  condefcenfion  and 
love  which  aie  manifeded  by  it  ;  or  the  important 
confequences  of  fuch  an  union.  But  we  do  not,  we 
cannot  fee,  how  the  birth  of  a  mere  man,  who  is  boro' 
in  flefli,  becaufe  he  could  not  be  born  otherwife,  can  be 
reckoned  a  great  myjlery. — To  fpeak  accurately  and  to 
reafon  jultly,  on  the  hypothefis  of  our  oppofcrs,  we 


SECT.  HI.  10^  gHap.  n, 

fhould  rather  look  for  my  Series  in  the  ierms  of  Scnpfure, 
than  in  tiie  objeds  cf  religion.  So  that  we  (hould  not 
fay,  **  Great  is  the  myfkry  of  godlinefs  /*  bjt,  Great 
is  the  niyltery  ot  the  language  which  is  ufed  by  ilie 
apoilies.  For  the  chief  difficulties  iound  in  our  divinity, 
lie  in  the  ohjeâl:  of  it  ;  wiiereas  thofe  which  piincijtally 
kffecft  their  fcheme,  lie  in  the  tern.s  of  Scripture. — But, 
as  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  intended  by  a  gracious 
God,  to  be  the  rule  of  f^iih  and  pra»5tice  to  the  moft 
illiterate  ;  its  language  ought  not  to  be  the  chief  fource  of 
diificuhies.  Yet,  as  the  ohjccJs  of  the  gofpel  are  fublinie 
and  incomprehenfibîe,  it  is  no  wonder  if  they  occafion 
the  principd  part  zï  that  obfcurity  which  we  find  in  the 
Sacred  Volume. 

Let  us  now  confider  this  pafTage  a  little  more  atten- 
tively. By  the  myjicry  of  godlinefs  ^  we  mult  here  under- 
/land,  the  dodtrine  of  the  gofpel.  This  is  evident  from 
the  following  enumeration  of  particulars,  which  conlti- 
tute  the  great  fubjecft  of  the  gofpel-miniftry.  *'  God 
*'  was  manifell  in  the  flelh,  jullified  in  the  Spirit,  fecn 
**  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  ia 
**  the  world,  received  up  into  glory." — Now  I  demand 
of  thofe  who  believe  that  Jefus  Chrill  is  a  mere  man  by 
nature,  what  is  the  meaning  of  thefe  words  ;  "  God 
"  was  manifeft  in  the  flefli  ?"  If  it  be  this,  '  The  man 
*  Jefus  converfed  among  men  ;'  the  my([ery,  certainly, 
is  not  great.  It  is,  indeed,  furprifmg,  that  Enoch  and 
Elijah  were  tranflated  into  heaven,  and  thatChrifl  was 
received  up  into  glory  ;  becaufe  heaven  is  not,  naturally, 
a  place  for  bodies  :  but  that  a  mere  man  was  feen  upon 
earth,  and  converfed  among  other  men,  was  never 
wondered  at  by  any. — Befides,  who  does  not  perceire 
that  thefe  words,  *'  God  was  manifell  in  the  flefh  ;'* 
imply  a  di(iin(5îion,  point  out  an  o'/pofltion,  between 
Godt  whom  we  cannot  fee  ;  and  a  hodyy  which  we  can 
fee — between  God,  who  is  fpiritual;  and  flefh,  which 
h  fetifib!:?    But  what  will  become  of  this  oppofition, 


SECT.   m.  1 06  CHAP.   II. 

and  of  the  reality  of  this  myftery,  if  tlic  true  God  was 
not  manifefl  in  the  fiefh  ? 

*  Jefus  Chrift,  they  will  fay,  thoiîgh  a  mere  man  by 

*  nature,  is  called  God,  becaufe  he  reprefents  Him.' — 
But  will  this  juitify  the  expreffions  before  us  ?  Kings 
are  called  ^ort*/,  becaufe  they,  in  fome  ftnfe,  repreftnt 
God  ;  yet  whoever  faid  of  a  fovcreign  prince,  '  Without 

*  controverfy,  great  is  the  myflery  of  royally  ;   God  was 

*  manifeft  in  the  flc(li  :' — The  gentlemen  with  whom 
we  contend  are  not  aware,  tiiat  they  make  a  ridiculous 
match  of  real  ilefli  and  a  true  manifeft.ition,  with  a 
metaiihor'ica]  God  :  whereas  they  fliould  unite  one  that 
\s  properly  culled  God,  with  real  ficlli  and  a  true  mani- 
fedation.  For  that  which  makes,  I  will  not  fay,  the 
greacnefs  of  the  myilery,  but  the  truth  of  it,  is,  the  oppo- 
Jiiion  implied,    between   what  ii;  fignificd  by   ihc  term 

Gody  and  what  is  intended  by  the  v/ord  Jlc/h.  Now 
there  is  an  oppofition  between  fiefh,  and  one  that  rs 
properly  called  God  ;  but  there  is  none  at  all  between 
a  metaphorical  God,  and  real  flefh. — In  what,  then, 
does  the  greatnefs  of  this  myilery  confil't  j  "  God  was 
"  manifeft  in  the  flefli  V 

Perhaps  tliey  may  anfwer,  <  In  the  glory  of  Divine 
<  power,  with  which  Chiifl  was  invefled  when  he  con- 
'  verfed  upon  earth  ;   which  appeared  in  fuch    miracles 

*  and  in  fo   great  a  number,  that  it  feemed  as  if  God 

*  himfelf  was  come  down  to  inhabit  ficHi  ' — But  if  fo, 
the  myilery  of  the  gofpel  has  noihiiigin  it  more  fuj-piilmg 
than  that  of  the  la^v  ;  and  we  may  find,  in  Moles,  a» 
well  as  in  Jefus  Chi  ill,  "  God  manifcd  in  the  llclh.'* 
For  Mofes  appeared  invelled  with  a  power,  which 
acted  on  all  the  parts  of  naiure,  as  if  he  had  been  the 
Lord  of  the  world. — And  did  not  the  apofiles  work 
miracles  ?  Yes;  and  greater,  in  fome  r£fpe(!îls,  than  thofe 
of  their  Divine  Mailer,  in  purfuaRce  of  his  own  prcmife. 
The  glorv  of  God's  power,  tliertr'bre,  was  manifell  in 
t^c.ii.     Yetj  in  what  page  of  the  New  Teflament  is  it 


Ôi:CT.  nu  tOj  CHAP.  It, 

faid  of  any  apodle  ;  "  God  w.is  manifeft  in  the  flefh  ?" 
Further  :  Either  the  miracles  of  Chrirt  ihewed  t!iat  the 
Divine  power  refided  in  him,  as  in  its  original;  and 
then  our  oppofers  mull  acknowledge  that  he  is  the  true 
God  :  or  they  were  ihe  efTcvfts  of  a  derived  power,  and 
fo  God  himfelf  performed  them  by  his  miniitry  and  at 
his  requed  ;  which  is  traî  of  t!:e  apollles  :  and  fo  we 
may  fay  of  them,  as  w^ll  as  of  Chri(t  ;  "  Great  is  the 
*'  myllery  of  f;od]incfs  :  God  was  manifefl  in  the  flelîi." 

But  in  what  confilh  the  greatnefs  of  the  myilv^ry, 
thus  underlbod  i*  Is  it  fo  uncommon,  is  it  fo  ailonilliing, 
that  God  fliouid  exert  and  difplay  his  power,  on  impor- 
tant occafions,  ar.d  for  his  own  glory,  at  the  requelt  of 
a  prophet,  or  cf  an  apodle  ?  Would  it  have  been  proper 
to  fay,  when  Elijah  made  fire  to  defcend  from  heaven, 
to  confound  the  impiety  of  Baal's  wcrlhippers,  *'  God. 
**  v;as  manifed  in  the  flefh  ?" — Certainly,  as  thefe 
exprefiions  are  fo  fi/*gular  and  fo  emphatical,  and  as  they 
v/ere  unknown  before  the  incarnation;  they  muft  refer 
to  a  very  v/onderful  objecl,  and  a  very  myfterious  facfl:— 
a  mofi:  aftonilhing  and  important  fad:,  v;hich  had  no 
exiflence  till  **  the  Word  was  made  ficfh."  For,  as 
language  is  adapted  to  the  objefls  it  reprefsnts,  the 
fingularity  of  exprellicns  indicates,  if  the  writer  be  honed 
and  wife,  a  fingularity  in  the  objetfl:  which  is  reprefented 
by  them.  As  the  language  of  Lhe  law  would  have 
appeared  new  and  extraordinary  to  the  ancient  Gentiles, 
fo  would  the  language  of  the  gofpel  to  them  that  lived 
under  the  lav/  ;  becaufe  the  obje(5is  of  the  law  are  very 
different  from  thofe  of  nature,  and  the  objects  of  the 
goipil  from  thofe  of  the  lav/.  What,  then,  fnall  we 
tiiink  of  thefe  nev/  and  uncommon  expreflions,  "  God 
*•  was  manifeft  in  the  fieHi  ;"  if  they  do  not  fignify 
a  new  and  wonderful  obje,^-,  unl:nov/n  to  nature, 
unknown  to  the  law  ? 

The  interpretation  which  our  adverfaries  put  upon 
this  paflage,  is  inconfiflent  with  the  language  of  th^ 
apodle.     For,  according  to  him,  God  is  manifedied,' 


srcT.  MI.  •  io8  CHAP.  ir. 

-or  appears,  in  fieili  ;  but,  acccrclng  to  them,  fefo  is 
raanifefted,  or  appears,  to  be  God  ;  the  term  flefh,  in 
the  phrafcology  of  the  Holy  Gnoft,  frequeniJy  fignifyidg 
the  human  nature.  Socinus  teaches,  that  he  who  is 
by  nature  ilefli,  is  exalted  fo  as  to  be  called  God  ; 
bccaufe  he  reprefents  God  in  a  wonderful  manner  :  fo 
that  we  have  iîefh  firfl,  îiod  then  a  manifefiation,  or 
reprefentaiion,  of  God.  But  Paul  informs  us,  that  he 
who  was  God  appears  in  fiefh:  confequently,  he  fuggefts 
the  idea  of  God,  prior  to  that  of  manyiejlaiion  in  the 
fefi.  This  is  the  fufl  and  mod  raturai  impreflion  of 
his  words. 

When  the  prophet  gives  that  exalted  chara(5^er, 
Immanuel,  to  Jefus  Chrifl  ;  we  immediately  conceive 
of  him  as  pofTciTed  of  fuch  perfeilTiions  as  cannot  belong 
to  a  mere  man.  For  fo  high  a  title  was  never  given, 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  any  prophet,  or  apodle.  It  is 
evidently  above  their  fiate  and  dignity.  And  yet, 
perhaps,  our  argument  from  it  might  not  be  quite 
conclufive,  if  it  were  the  only  fublime  title  which  the 
Scripture  gives  him.  But  when  we  hear  an  apofUe 
call  him,  "  GOD  manifest  ik  the  flesh  ;"  the 
two  charadters  illuflrate  each  other,  and  we  are  taught 
to  ccnGder  them  both  in  the  higheft  fenfe  the  words 
will  bear.  To  anfwer  the  natural  import  of  the  former, 
the  true  God  mufl  be  really  'w'lih  us  :  to  correfpond 
with  the  fenfe  of  the  latter,  the  true  God  mull  be 
incarnai:. 

Jefus  Chrid,  according  to  us,  is  God  and  man. 
He  exited,  not  only  before  he  was  born  of  the  virgin  j 
but  alfo  before  Abraham.  He  was,  in  the  beginning, 
with  God  ;  he  was  God,  and  *'  was  manifeft  in  the 
*'  flefh,"  having  aiTumed  our  nature.  "  He  was  juftified 
*' in  the  Spirit;"  having  fent  the  Holy  Ghoft,  to 
vindicate  his  charaf^er  from  every  unrighteous  charge  ; 
to  aifert  the  efficacy  of  his  death,  and  the  truth  of  his 
refurreflion.  *^  Seen  of  angels  ;"  at  his  birth,  in  his 
a^ony,    and    in    his    triumph.      **  Preached    unto   the 


SECT.  ni.  109  CHA?.   II. 

«'Gentiles;"   wjth  great  fucccTs.     *' Believed  en    i,i 
«*  the    world  ;''    notwithllanding  the    reproach    under 
which  the  doclrine  of  the  crofs  lay.     *'  And  received 
*'  up  into  glory;"  in  the  prefence  of  a  great  number  of 
his  difciplcs,  where  he  ever  lives  to  make  inter cefiioa 
for  his  people.     And  now,  what  dilhculty  is  there  in 
all  this?  This  is  the  gofiK-l  which  we  have  received 
from    the    beginning. — According    to    the    Socinians, 
Jefas  Chrift  is,  by  nature,  a  mere  man  ;  but  is  highly 
exalted  for  his  obedience  ;  fo  exalted,  as  to  be  called  ^ 
God.     Nov/,  in  a  mere  man,  I  find  but  three  things  ; 
a  body,  a  foul,  and  the  compound  refulting  from  the 
union  of  both.      I  demand,  therefore,  which  of  thefe 
was  manifefted  in  the  flelh  ?  Not  the  foul;  for  it  would 
be  abfurd  to  call  the  foul  of  Jtfus,  God  :  and  equally 
fo,  to  talk  of  its  being  manifelled  in  the  flefli.    Befides, 
v/e  are  fpeaking  of  a  fubjed  that  was  **  received  up  into 
*'  glory  ;"    which  is  affirmed,    not  lefs  cf  the   body, 
than  it  is  of  the  foul.     Nor  is  it  the  body  of  Jefus  Chriil 
that  was  manifelled  in  llefli.    For  it  is  ridiculous  to  fay, 
that  fiefli  is  manifefled   in  flefh.     Nor  was  the  whole 
compoundy  or   the  entire   man,  manifeftcd  in  the  fieflî  ; 
f  jr  this  compound  is  only  the  body  and  foul  united. 

If  the  qucftion  were  about  a  quality^  it  might  bt  faid, 
That  the  power,  or  wifdom,  or  holinefs,  or  authority  of 
God,  was  manifeded  in  the  flcfa.  But  it  is  about  a 
per/on;  for  thofe  words,  **  received  uj)  into  glory,"  can 
be  undcrftood  of  no  other.  This  perfon,  therefore, 
muf}  be  either  human,  or  Divine.  Not  the  latter;  for;, 
according  to  our  oppofers,  there  is  none  but  the  Father. 
He  mult,  confequently,  be  the  former.  But  a  iîum.an 
perfon  is  a  man  :  a  man,  therefore,  was  manifeft  in  the 
llefh.  But  can  it  be  faid,  without  the  greated  ablurdity, 
that  a  man,  confiding  of  a  body  and  foul  united,  is 
manifcft  in  fiefli  ?  It  cannot  be  denied,  if  Chrilt  be  a 
mere  man,  that  the  fame  nature  was  thus  mar-iftiltu, 
which  was  afterwards  received  up  into  glory  ;  f(>r  oi.r 
opponents  will  not  allow  that  he  has  two  natures.  K.s 
K 


^r.cr.  m.  i  lo  chap.  n. 

bam?n  nature,  conreqnentiy,  mufl  hare  been  manifcfted 
ii)  the  ficfn  ;  the  very  thought  of  wliich  is  big  with 
abfurdlty. 

But  the  tenets  of  cur  sdverraries  not  only  militate 
againfi:  the  nu'liery  of  God's  maniftdiition  in  the  lîefh  ; 
for  they  delhoy  alt  the  rnylleries  at  once,  by  removing 
^\•hatever  is  difiicuk  in  religion. — The  doflrine  of  the 
crofs,  as  reprefented  in  the  New  Tcftiment,  has  fome 
things  in  it  which  are  fubiime  and  wonderful,  difficult 
and  incornprdheafible  ;  things  which  are  contrary  to  the 
div5iate3  of  depraved  reafon,  and  to  our  natural  prejudices. 
Hence  it  is  called  by  one  who  was  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  it;  *'  A  (rumbling  block  to  tlie  Jews,  and  fooiifh- 
**  nefs  to  the  Greeks."  But  what  is  there  myrterious 
and  incomprehennble  in  the  crofs  of  Chrift,  if  he  be  a 
mere  man  ?  Did  the  Jews  never  fee  a  man,  who  was 
acceptable  to  God,  periecuted  by  the  wicked  ?  Did  the 
fervants  of  God  never  fuffer  death,  to  fjgnalize  their 
zeal,  or  to  confirm  the  truth  ?  If  there  be  any  myftery 
in  the  crofs  of  Chriit,  it  niui^  be,  eiilicr  becai.fe  he  is  a 
righteous  man  who  f offers  ;  or  a  prophet  ;  or  the  Son  of 
God.  ]>iolihQjirj7  ;  fur  neither  Jews  noï  Gentiles  can 
look  upon  the  death  of  an  innocent  man,  under  the 
pov/er  of  his  perfecators,  as  a  new,  or  a  llrange  thing. 
Not  the  fecondi  for  many  prophets  had  been  feen  to 
die  for  the  truth.  Nor,  according  to  our  adverfaries, 
can  it  be  the  laji ;  for,  if  we  believe  them,  he  is  the 
Son  of  God  only  by  a  metaphor  :  or,  at  mofl,  as  Adam 
was  in  his  fud  llate  ;  having  been  formed  immediately 
by  the  power  of  God,  and  enriched  with  his  gifts  and 
graces. 

Paul  fpeaks  of  "  the  foollfhnefs  of  preaching,  by 
<'  which  God  faves  them  that  believe."  The  gofpel  is 
called  fooUponefs^  becaufe  it  contains  fach  things  as 
appear  incredible,  and  really  are  incomprehenfible.  But 
what  is  there  of  this  kind,  in  the  gofpel,  if  the  fydem 
of  cur  oppofers  be  fcriptural  ?  For  they  remove,  or 
pretend  to  reniove,  all  the  principal  difBculcies  out  o^ 


SECT.  TH.  tu  CH  \P.   II. 

the  way.  Ts  not  this  a  rtrong  prefumpiion  that  their 
gofpe),  and  their  chriîHanity,  are  very  different  from 
thofe  which  Paul  preached  and  profofled  ? — Common 
ferfe  and  a  moderate  (hsre  of  impartiality  muft.  f.irelv, 
allow,  that  there  are  more  difficulties  and  greater  obfcu- 
ri.ty  in  thofe  obje(5ts  which  the  gofpel  reveals,  than  i;* 
thofe  prefented  to  u«;  in  the  v^^orks  of  creation.  And 
yet,  if  the  hypothefis  which  we  oppofe  be  admitted, 
there  are  more  myfleries  in  the  1  mailed:  ipdedt,  in  a  fpirt 
efgrafs,  or  in  a  grain  of  fand,  than  in  all  theChrifiiaa 
religion. — There  were  many  things  under  the  ancien'- 
Jewini  œconomy  that  were  grand,  fublimL\  atid  niylle- 
rious  ;  yet  they  are  not  denominated  myjhties,  by  th  j 
Holy  Spirit,  as  thofe  under  the  gof])el-difpenfation  ar^j. 
Nor  were  the  objecfts  of  the  law  ever  faid  to  be  flnli/hrufs^ 
on  account  of  their  being  contrary  to  hiiinan  prejudices  i 
rnd  y'.n,  if  our  opponents  be  in  tlie  li^ht,  theie  were 
greater  myfleries  under  the  law,  than  any  wc  have  unu.i- 
the  gofpel.  God,  for  inflance,  appealing  in  the  burning- 
bufti,  was  a  greater  niyftery,  than  "  God  manifefled 
♦'  in  the  flefli." 

The  hypothefis  which  we  oppofe,  fuperfedes  tli; 
receilky  and  dedroys  the  nature  oï  true  faith  :  the  nature- 
and  excellence  of  which  confdl,  in  receiving  fuch  truths 
as  lie  beyond  the  powers  of  reafon  to  dilcover  ;  fuc-i 
truths,  as  we  could  not  receive,  but  upon  the  telHmony 
of  God  who  reveals  them.  Faiih  and  light  are  different 
things.  By  the  latter  we  receive  fuch  truths  as  have  ;l 
natural  relation  to  our  notions  and  light  ;  by  the  former, 
fuch  as  are  contrary  to  our  prejudices,  on  the  b  ire  autho- 
rity of  God  in  the  Scriptures.  Whereas  this  dillinâiou 
is  utterly  deftroyed,  if  the  gofpel  reveal  no  obje»5ts,  it" 
the  Chridian  religion  contain  no  truths,  but  fuch  as  are 
level  to  our  capacities,  and  as  agreeable  to  them  as 
natural  truths.  But  we  lliall  have  occafion  to  refucîî' 
the  confideration  of  thefe  thinos  h.erciirur. 


K  Z 


SKCT.   III.  1Î2  CHAP.   III. 


CHAPTER    III, 

The  hrpothcfis  of  our  adverfaries  deprives  Jesus  Christ  of  hià 
higheft  honour;  by  making  him  prflcfs  thofc  Titles  in  a 
metaphorical  ienfe,  which  th*?  Scripture  applies  to  Iiim  ia 
yne  that  is  proper.     '1  h  s  proved  by  two  inlîanccs. 

CtREATLY  diversified  and  truly  fublime 
ire  the  titles  of  honour  and  grace,  that  are  given  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  the  great  Redeemer  ;  but  which,  on  the 
principles  of  our  adverfaries,  have  little  lignificancy  in 
tl-em.  I  fiiall  here  make  choice  of  twa,  as  a  fj^ecimen  : 
one  of  which  is  mod  (Irongly  adapted  to  exprefs  his 
verfonal  dignity  and  eflential  glory  ;  the  other,  his  grace 
ard  work  as  our  Mediator.  The  titles  1  mean  are, 
The  Son  of  God,  and  Th5  Saviour;  both  whk!» 
are  frequently  applied  to  him  in  the  Scripture. 

Jefus  Chrif},  it  is  evident,  is  frequently  and  emphati- 
cally called,  "  The  Son  of  God— His  ow«  Son — The 
*'  begotten  of  the  Father — His  only  begotten  Son — And, 
*'  the  Son  of  the  Father  in  truth  and  love.'* — It  muft, 
th.erefore,  be  allowed,  that  God  has  a  Son,  who  is,  in 
îhe  molt  emphatical  fenfe,  his  own  ;,  who  is  his  Son  in 
a  higher  ftufe,  than  thofe  who  are  fo  called  in  virtue 
.of  adoption.  It  muil  alfo  be  acknowledged,  that  they 
who  are  the  children  of  God  by  adoption,  have  a  claim 
to  the  chara'fier  oï  fins  in  a  Wronger  feufe,  than  they 
A\ho  are  fo  called  only  by  a  metaphor. 

Eut  our  opponents  invert  this  order.  For,  according 
to  them,  Chrift  cannot  be  called  The  Son  of  God, 
but  only  by  a  figure  :  and,  on  the  other  hand,  believers 
are  the  fons  of  God  by  adoption,  though  they  be  fo  only 
in  Jefas  Chrift.  But  how  can  a  metaphorical  fon,  be 
more  truly  a  fon,  than  adopted  fons  ?  And  how  can 
adopted  fons  owe  their  adoption  to  a  metaphorical  fon  I 
^For,  either  Chrift  is  bimfelf  adopted  by  the  Father, 


fi£CT.   III.  113  CHAP.  III. 

or  he  is  not.  If  the  former^  how  comes  it  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  tho-^gh  he  often  fj^eaks  of  the  adoption  of 
believers,  (hould  never  fay  a  word  of  his  adoption  ? 
Why  is  this  ianpua^ç  unknown  to  ihe  Bible;    *  God  has 

*  adopleil  his  Son,  Jcfus  Chrifl  ?'  and  fo  unknov/n,  that 
it  would  be  looked  upon  as  blafphcmous.  if  the  latter^ 
he  is  only  a  metaphorical  fon  :  for  he  is  not  fo  by  nature  ; 
our  adverfaries  cannot  bear  the  exprcflion.  Nor  is  he 
•fo  by  adoption  ;  for  the  language  of  Scripture  does  not 
allow  the  thought.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  he  is  fo 
only  by  a  metaphor  ;  and,  confcquently,  the  fonfliip  of 
believers  is  of  a  fjpcrior  kind  to  that  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

The  title,  "  Sons  of  God,*'  which  believers  bear, 
has  ever  been  juftly  efiecmed  an  eminent  proof  of  their 
interefl  in  the  Father's  love,  li  is  a  glorious  and  won- 
derful fruit  oî  Divine  grace,  and  as  fuch  thc)'  acknow- 
ledge it  with  gratitude  and  joy.  But  the  chara6îcr,  S  ok, 
which  Jefus  bears,  ought  never  to  be  confidered  in  that 
light.  For  it  cannot  be  faid,  He  is  the  Son  of  God, 
becaufe  God  loves  him;  but,  God  loves  him  becaufe  he 
is  h\s  Son.  The  beloved  difciple  fays,  **  Behold,  what 
"  manner  of  love  the  Father  hath  beftowcd  upon  us, 
«*  that  we  fhould  be  called  the  fons  of  God!"  But 
we  never  hear  any  of  che  infpired  writers  fay,  '  Behold, 

*  how  God  loves  Jefus  Chriit,  that  he  /hould  call  him 

*  his  Son  1*  The  reafon  is,  the  exalted  character  is 
foreign  and  accidental  to  us  ;  but  proper  and  tHential 
to  him.  In  refpeft  of  us,  it  is  matter  of  mere  fiwour  ; 
in  regard  of  him.  it  is  his  et.ern.1l  right. 

Jefus,  the  Son  of  God,  is  faid  to  be  **  in  the  bofom 
"  of  the  Father,"  and  to  "  fit  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 
In  the  hojom  of  the  Father — At  the  right  hand  of  God. 
Of  thefc  two  characlerirtics,  the  former  is  more  peculiar 
to  the  Son  of  God,  as  fuch.  It  is  a  mark  of  faperior 
honour  to  be  feated  at  the  right  hand  ;  but  of  the 
greeted  affcc'lion  to  reft  on  the  bofom.  And  as  it  is 
more  na.iural  to  love,  than  to  honour,  a  Son  ;  fo,  to 
be  *'  in  the  bofcm  of  the  Father,"  is  a  fituatioa  more 

K3 


f.i:CT.  ill.  114  ÔHAP.   Ill, 

peculiar  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  fuch,  than  that  of  litting 
at  his  violu  hand. — But  we  fliail  have  occafion,  when 
anfwciing  the  objeiStionsofourcppofers,  in  theconcludirg 
Sefiion  of  this  work,  to  confider  the  Sonfhip  of  Jelus 
Chrill;  more  at  large.  I  proceed,  therefore,  and  briefly 
obferve, 

That  the  chara^ler,  Saviour,  fo  frequently  and  To 

difiinguifhingly  given  to  Jefus  Chrift,  entirely  lofts  iis 

gracious  and  glorious  import,  on  the  principles  of  our 

opponents.      Por  if  he  be  a  mere  man  ;  if  the  whole 

which  he  did  for  us  be  included,  in  preaching  the  gofpel, 

in  fuffering  perfecution  and  death,  to  fet  us  an  example 

of  patience  and  to  confirm  the  truth  which  he  taught  ; 

he  has  done  but  little  m.ore  for  us  than  the  apodles  and 

-martyrs  themfelves.     On  this  fuppofition  it  is  hard  to 

fay,  what   benefit  any  of  the  human   race,  who  died 

before  he  appeared  in  the  world,  could  receive  from 

his  undertaking.   If  thefe  were  the  only,  or  the  principal 

benefits  we  receive  from  him,  we  may  venture  to  affert, 

that  Mofes  was  more  truly  the  Saviour  of  the  Ifiaelites, 

than  Jefus  Chrilt  is  of  mankind.      For   Mofes  himfelf 

did  that,  which  Chrill  does  principally  by  his  apojiks. 

The  former  delivercd  the  chofen  tribes  out  of  flavery  ; 

the  latter  is  only  called  a  deliverer,  while  he  leaves  us 

to  fave  ourfelves.     Mofes,  indeed,  did  not  fuffer  death 

as  Chrift  did  ;  but  then,  as  to  a  real  and  proper  atcre- 

ment,  or  as  a  price  of  redemption,  the  death  of  Jefus  is 

as  unprofitable  to  us,  as  the  death  of  that  ancient  law- 

j.iver  would  have  been  to  the  poiterity  of  Jacob.      But 

îliis  particular  muft  be  the  fubjed  of  the  next  Chapter. 


SECT.  III.  115  CHAP.  IV. 


CHAPTER    IF, 


According  to  the  fentimcnts  of  our  advcrfaries,    the  Death  of 
Christ  has  no  real  Ufefuhiefs  in  it. 

J.  HEY  who  are  acquainted  with  the  gofpel 
of  divine  grace  cannot  but  know,  that  the  death  of 
Chrift  is  not  only  ufeful,  but  abfolutely  necefTriry  to  our 
falvation.  His  vicarious  obedience  and  atoning  death, 
^re  the  grand  fubjedl  of  the  minirtry  of  reconciliation. 
Hence  the  determination  of  Paul,  "  to  knov/  nothing 
"but  Jefus  Chrift  and  him  crucified;"  and  to  glory 
only  in  the  crofs  of  his  crucified  Lord. 

This  interefting  truth  was  clearly  taught  by  the 
ancient  prophets.  Witnefs  that  famous  oracle,  in  the 
fifty-third  Chapter  of  Ifaiah  ;  which  contains  fo  many 
illm'lrioLiS  charaderiilics  of  the  Mtfllah,  depending  upon 
.his  death  ;  and  that  animated  defcription  of  his  fufferings 
and  forrows,  in  the  twenty-fecond  Pfalm. — John  the 
Eaptift  no  fooner  fees  Jefus  than  he  points  him  out,  as 
an  atoning  facrilice.  "  Behold,"  fays  tiiat  venerable 
teacher,  "  behold,  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
*•  away  the  fm  of  the  world  !" — Chrilt  himfelf,  when 
difcourfing  familiarly  with  his  difciples,  frequently 
foretels  his  own  death.  And  when  one  of  his  apoftles 
endeavours  to  difluade  him  from  going  up  to  Jerufalem 
thereto  fuffer,  he  fharply  rebukes  him  for  it  ;  offuch 
importance  was  it,  in  his  elteem,  to  the  falvation  of  man 
and  the  glory  of  God.  And  when  he  was  expiiing  on 
the  crofs  he  ciied,  with  his  laft  breath,  "  Ins  finished;'» 
plainly  implying,  that  his  death  is  of  the  laft  importance  ; 
that  his  death  comprehends  all. 

The  propitiatory  death  of  our  great  High-prieft  was 
foretold  in  the  earliell  promifes,  and  prefigured  in  the 
ancient  types,     The  dying  Jefus  was  reprefented  by  the 


SECT.  III.  Il6  CHAP.  IV. 

pafchallamb;  which  was  facrificed  in  Egypt,  inflead 
of  the  firlt  born  of  the  Ilraelit'^sj  the  blood  of  which, 
being  fprinkled  on  the  door-poits  of  their  houfes,  fecured 
them  from  the  fword  of  the  deilroying  angel.  For,  as 
the  pafchal-lamb  ranfomed  the  firit-born,  being  facrificed 
for  them  ;  fo  Jefus  delivers  believers  from  the  fword  of 
Divine  juftice,  by  dying  in  their  ftead.  It  is  neceiTary, 
however,  to  be  obferved,  that  as  thofe  things  which  were 
but  imperfedly  reprefented  under  the  lav/,  are  fully 
accompiiihed  under  the  gofpel  ;  there  is  this  diffeier.cc 
between  the  type  and  the  antitype  :  The  former,  though 
not  an  equivalent  for  the  life  of  a  man,  was  accepted  of 
God  ;  becaufe  the  defign  then  was,  not  to  male  fati?fac- 
lion  to  God's  juftice  ;  but  only  to  prefigure  that  faciificc 
which  was  to  make  a  full  fatisfa^tion.  But  Chrift  is  a 
worthy  ranfom  j  a  fubftitute,  whom  we  need  not  feat 
being  rcjedted,  as  inferior  to  thofe  for  whom  he  dies. 
He  is,  therefore,  called,  "  The  Lamb  of  God."  He  iï 
THE  Lamb,  by  way  of  excellence  ;  the  only  lamb  that 
can  atone  for  our  fins  and  ranfom  our  fouls.  Such  is 
the  import  of  the  phrafe,  according  tothe  (lyle  ofinfpira- 
tion  ;  in  which  it  is  common  to  add  the  Divine  name  to 
■anything  that  is  peculiarlyexcellent,  great,  orremarkable. 
As,  for  indance  ;  "  The  mountains  of  God  ;  the 
*'  cedars  of  God  ;  the  garden  of  God  ;"  and  here, 
*'  The  Lamb  of  God  ;'* — Our  dying  Surety  was 
reprefented  by  the  fcape-goat,  on  the  great  day  of 
expiation.  To  fulfil  this  type,  therefore,  he  mud:  bear 
our  fins;  he  mufl  be  anathema;  he  muft  be  made  a 
curfe  for  us-  For  if  not,  why  was  he  reprefented  by 
this  goat  ?  What  was  there,  in  any  other  view,  common 
between  them  ? — I  might,  on  this  occafion,  multiply 
particulars  out  of  the  Jewiih  ritual,  but  thefe  may  fuffice. 
That  the  application  we  make  of  thefe  ancient  types 
is  not  fanciful  and  forced,  the  facred  penmen  of  the 
New  Teltament  abundantly  fhew.  They  unite  in 
affuring  us,  That  *'  Chrifl"  our  paiTover  is  facrificed  for 
^»  us — That  hç  is  the  Lamb  çf  O^d,  which  taketh  a\vay 


SECT.   III.  I  17  t'HAP.   IV. 

**  the  fm  of  the  world — That  he  himfelf  bare  our  fîng 
*»  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree — -That  he  was  made  (In 
"  for  us — That  he  was  made  a  curfe  for  us — That  he 
"  gave  his  lite  ^  ranfcm  for  many— That  he  was 
*'  delivered  for  our  offences — That  he  hanh  reconciled 
*'  and  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his  blood — That  his 
*'  blood  purges  the  corfcicnce  from  dead  works,  and 
"  cleanfeth  from  all  fin." — Thefe  declarations  arc 
perfc'flly  conformable  to  the  language  of  prophecy^  in 
>vhich  it  is  faid  ;  *'  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the 
*•  iniquity  of  us  all — He  (hall  make  his  fou!  an  offering 
*'  for  fm — The  MeHiah  fhall  be  cut  otf,  but  not  for 
**  himfelf — For  the  tranfgrelTion  of  my  people  was  he 
"  Itricken — He  was  wounded  for  our  tranlgrcllions,  he 
*'  was  bruifed  for  our  iniquities,  the  chaftifemcnt  of  our 
**  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  firipes  we  are 
**  healed." — Wliat,  now,  can  we  infer  from  thefe,  and 
2.  multitude  of  fimilar  paflages  in  the  Book  of  God,  but 
that  the  death  of  Chrifl  was  vicarious;  that  he  died, 
rot  only  for  our  goody  bat  in  our  JleaJ;  and  that  hig 
death  has  procured  for  us,  not  fome  trifling  benefit  only, 
but  remiflion  of  fins  and  eternal  life  ?  being  a  full  fativ 
fa<flion  to  the  demands  of  a  yiolated  law,  and  the  claims 
of  eternal  juflice. 

But,  notwithQanding  all  this,  if  Jcfus  be  a  mere 
creature,  i\vi  do(5îrine  of  the  fatisfadion  cannot  be  defen- 
ded. Of  this  the  Socinians  are  aware,  and  therefore 
they  renounce  it  ;  even  though  it  is  an  article  in  the 
Chriftian  faith  of  the  greated  importance  ;  an  article,  fo 
often  repeated,  fo  varioudy  and  fo  emphatically  exprefled 
in  Scripture,  that  v/e  might,  with  equal  reafon,  renounce 
Revelation  itfelf,  as  call  it  in  queftion.  But  let  us  now 
inquire,  what  advantage  we  have  by  the  death  of  Chrili, 
according  to  our  opponents. 

They  tell  us,  *  That  the   blood   of   Ghrift  confirms 

*  the  new  covenant,  which  God  makes  with  mankind 

*  through  him.' — But  if  his  death  ferve  only  to  confirm 
the  covenant,  in  their  fenfc  of  tlie  exprclHons,  there  13 


SECT.   IIÏ.  Il8  CHAI'.   IV. 

little  reafon  to  confider  It  as  the  principal  objeft  of  our 
believing  regards.  For  of  all  the  events  relating  to  Jefus 
Chrirt,  this  is  the  ieafi:  adanr.td  to  confirm  the  covenant. 
If  we  confider  him  as  dying  in  our  (lead,  and  as  fultaining 
the  punirtiment  deferved  by  our  fins  ;  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  his  death  aimres  us  of  the  luve  of  God,  and 
ratifies  his  covenant  of  grace  :  but,  on  their  hypothcfis, 
it  is  not  fitted  to  anfwer  any  fuch  defign  ;  his  life,  at 
lead,  is  much  better  adapted  to  that  purpofe.  For 
thofe  multiplied  and  fiiining  miracles  which  he  wrought 
encourage  our  faith  in  him,  much  more  than  the 
forrows    and  pangs   of   his  death. — '  But  though  his 

*  miracles  are  better  calculated  to  affure  us  of  his  power  ; 

*  yet  his  death  is  the  grcateit  evidence  of  his  love,  and 

*  beih  fitted  to  perfuade  us  of  it.*  To  perfuade  us  of  his 
love  !  But  how  fhould  an  unprofitable  death  he  fo  well 
adapted  to  perfuade  us  of  his  love  ?  Was  it  ever  known 
that  a  wi(ë  man  laid  down  his  life  for  no  other  end,  but 
to  convince  another  how  much  he  loved  him  ?  Befides, 
on  the  principles  of  our  adverfaries,  the  death  of  Chrill 
is  more  beneficial  to  himfelf  than  it  is  to  us,  as  we  have 
before  proved. 

But  in  what  refpec^  does  the  death  of  Jefus  confirm  the 
covenant?  Is  it  on  the  part  of  man,  or  on  the  part  of 
GodP  Not  the /^rn^r,  I  prefume  ;  it  muft,  therefore, 
be  the  latter;  but  then  it  is  on  our  principles,  not  en 
theirs.  That  is,  the  death  of  Chriit  gives  us  the 
highefl  afTurance  that  God  will  perform  his  gracious 
proniifes  to  the  utmoft.  This  we  allow  ;  in  this  we 
rejoice,  as  a  moft  comfortable  and  certain  trutli;  becaufe 
we  confider  the  death  of  the  incarnate  Son,  as  the, 
greateft  pofHble  evidence  of  the  Father's  love  to  our 
fouls.  Hence  we  conclude,  that  as  God  has  done 
us  this  wonderful  kindnefs,  he  will  do  us  every  other 
that  he  has  promifed  ;  this  being  fach  a  favour,  as  is 
greater  than  any,  greater  than  all  the  red:.  If  it  were 
not  fo,  it  would  by  no  means  follow,  that  becaufe  he 
has  delivered  up  Jefus  to  death,  he  v/ill  give  us  eternal 


SLCT.  in.  1  19  CHAP.   lv% 

life.  For  tbonoh  it  is  highly  probable,  that  he  wlio 
docs  a  greater  kindncrs  will  do  a  Icfs  ;  yet  it  is  far 
from  being  certain,  that  he  who  does  a  lefs  will  ulfo 
do  a  greater.  If  Jefjs  be  a  mere  man,  and  if  his  death 
be  not  a  faLisfaCti>3n  to  Divine  jufiice  ;  his  hfe  cannot 
be  fo  valuable  as  the  etern.il  happincfs  of  thofe  he  redeems; 
and,  confec]uent!y,  the  gift  of  tlie  former  cannot  afTure 
us  that  we  Ihall  have  the  latter. 

*  The  death  of  Chrifl  is  alfo  of  ufe  to  confirm  his 
*  doctrine.* — Suppofe  it  be,  yet  it  cannot  be  the  grand 
ufe  of  it  ;  bccaufe  the  Scriptures  never  mention  it  as 
fiich,  where  the  benefits  refulting  fioni  it  are  enumerated. 
Befides,  if  this  were  ils  principal  ufe,  it  would  be  of 
much  lefs  advantage  to  us  than  his  life  ;  the  latter  being 
~ abundantly  better  adapted  to  confirm  his  do^rine. 
•His  life  is  all  glorious  with  great,  beneficent,  aftonifhing 
■works,  which  prove  that  the  doflrine  he  teaches  is 
truly  Divine;  becaufc  Heaven,  by  a  thoufiind  miraculous 
fads,  gives  him  an  unfufpc(51cd  te(Hmony.  But  though 
his  death  plainly  ftiews,  that  he  Jhic::rcJy  believes  his 
doctrine  to  be  Divine  ;  yet,  feparatcly  confidered,  it 
does  not  prove  that  it  is  fo  in  reality. .  Nor  is  he  the 
only  perfon  who  confirmxcd  the  truths  which  he  taught, 
by  fuffering  a  violent  death.  In  this  rcfpe<5t  there  was 
notliing  in  his  death  bat  what  v/as  common  to  prophet?, 
apsAIes,  and  martyrs. — Again  ;  To  whom  fliould  the 
death  of  Clirift  confirm  the  truth  of  his  dodrine  ?  to  his 
enemies  or  his  friends  ?  Not  his  enernics ;  for  the  greatefl 
and  mc;l  dreadful  part  of  his  fufferings  was  unobferved 
by  them.  They  neither  beheld  his  bloody  agony  in  the 
garden,  nor  knew  the  caufe  of  his  bitter  cry  on  the 
crofs.  And  as  to  thofe  f^jiferings  v/hich  did  come  under 
their  notice»  they  looked  upon  them  as  the  jufl  reward 
of  his  fuppofed  bhfphemy. — Not  his  f rien tis ;  for  his 
death  was  confidered  by  them  in  a  very  different  point 
of  light.  So  far  from  conjirming,  that  it  Jla^gered  their 
iVith  in  his  doftrine  ;  and  they  cried  out,  *'  We  trufted 
**  tha-    it  had  been   he  which    ft>!)uld   have  redeemed 


ÔECT.   III.  120  CHAP.  IV, 

*<  Ifrael."  Riy,  were  we  to  confider  the  death  ofChrifl:, 
V'itliout  any  reference  to  an  atonement  for  fin,  to  his 
preceding  nr.iracles,  and  fubfequent  refurrcétion  ;  it 
would  be  fo  far  from  confirming  liis  dodrine,  that  it 
would  prove  the  firongcft  confutation  of  it  that  malice 
iifelf  could  defire. 

But  what  dok^iine  is  the  death  ofChrifl  fujîpofed  to 
confirm  ?  Is  it  that  of  for^ivniefs  with  Gcd  ?  That  our 
oifcnded  Sovereign  \A\\  pardon  Jlnncr s  ?  Far,  very  far 
from  it,  on  the  principles  of  our  cppofers.  For  by  what 
mode  cf  argi;mentation  fnall  we  infer,  that  becaufe  a 
pcrfsBly  innuceni  and  righteous  perfon  was  treated  v/ith 
fuch  feverity,  by  the  eternal  God  ;  that  he  will  exercife 
his  pardoning  mercy  on  criminals,  who  deferve  to  perilh  ? 
The  natural,  tlie  unavoidable  inference,  is  of  a  contrary 
kind.  For  if  fuch  things  were  done  in  a  green  tree, 
wliat  (hall  be  done  in  the  dry  I  If  judgment  began  with 
the  holy  Jefus,  where  fhall  the  finner  and  the  ungodly 
appear  !  if  God  fpared  not  his  own  Son,  how  much 
lefs  will  he  fpare  his  enemies  !  Kov/  fhould  thinking 
men  believe  Jefus  v/hen  hs  tells  them,  that  God  will  pity 
and  pardon  finners  ;  while  they  behold  their  Maker 
treating  the  holy  Teacher  himfelf  with  fjch  alarming 
feverity  ?  The  death  of  Chrift,  therefore,  detached 
from  a  confideration  of  its  being  fatisfactory  to  the  claims 
of  Divine  juilice,  or  an  atonement  for  (in  ;  is  fo  far 
from  being  a  fource  of  hope  to  the  guilty,  that  it  k 
calculated  to  raife  in  their  breads  the  mod  awful  appre- 
henficns,  and  to  fink  theni  in  utter  defpair. 

*  In  the  death  of  Chrift  we  have  an  admirable  example 
*  of  patience' — Granted;  but  then  it  is  on  our  principles, 
not  on  thofe  of  our  opponents.  He  has  given  fuch  an 
example  of  patience  as  never  had,  nor  ever  will  have  its 
equal;  for  he  not  only  endured  the  fierce  totnitnts  of 
crucifixion,  but  fudained,  which  was  infinitely  more 
dreadful,  the  wrath  of  God.  •'  He  was  made  fin — 
**  he  was  made  a  curfe  for  us."  A])pcaring  as  our 
ilibditute,  the  fword  of  eternal  juflice  awoke  upon  him, 


S£CT.   III.  121  CHA?.   iV. 

and  he  was  deprived,  for  a  feafon,  of  his  Father's 
prcfence  ,*  a  privation  the  more  keenly  fenlible,  bccaul^ 
his  love  to  the  Father  was  fervent,  confiant,  perfect 
Yes,  Jefus,  the  dear,  the  adorable  Jefus,  underwent 
ihofe  pains  and  forrows,  thofe  agonies  and  horrors, 
which  are  included  in  the  penal  fmcflioB  of  the  law,  and 
which  the  juuice  of  God  inflicis,  when  fatisfudion  for 
fin  is  required.  Who,  then,  v/ho  can  forbear  to  wonder 
at  his  patience  and  fortitude  ? 

But  the  do(5lrine  of  our  opponents,  gires  us  a  very 
different  view  of  our  fjffering  Lord.  For  if  he  fuffercd 
only  in  their  fenfe,  there  have  been  much  greater 
examples  of  patience  and  fortitude  in  multitudes  cf 
inartyrs.  Many  of  thofe  faithful  witnelTes  fulfered  for 
a  much  longer  time,  and  under  a  greater  variety  of 
keener  torments;  and  yet,  indead  of  being  overwhelmed 
with  forrow,  were  tranfported  with  joy.  This  is  a 
certain  fa<5t,  but  quite  aftonidiing  and  perfedly  unac- 
countwible,  on  the  hypothefis  v\'hich  we  oppofe.  It 
fhocks  reafon  and  daggers  faith;  it  nonplufles  imagination 
and  glares  on  the  mind  as  an  impious  abfurdity.  What, 
(liall  He  who  is  perfed,  (hall  tlis  Lion  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  be  terrified  at  the  approach  of  death  ;  a  death 
in  which  he  fufFers  no  fenfations  cf  Divine  vengeance, 
nor  any  bitternefs  of  the  Divine  curfe  denounced  againit 
fin  ;  while  his  fervants,  who  have  all  their  ilrength  and 
confolation  from  Jiini,  triumph  in  the  midfl:  of  torments! 
What,  fiiall  he  be  feized  with  agonizing  forrows,  while 
they  are  tranfported  with  joy  !  What,  ftiali  he  fwetft 
blood  at  the  approach  of  death,  while  they  behold  a 
Divine  hand  wiping  off  their  blood  and  fvveat,  for  as 
to  tears  they  do  not  fiied  one  !  He  complains  that  God 
has  forfaken  him,  while  they  rejoice  that  evcrlading 
arms  embrace  and  fjpport  them  ! — Wkiat  could  be  the 
reafon  of  this  aftonifliing  difference  ?  It  muft  have  been, 
either  on  the  part  of  God,  or  on  that  of  fécond  caufl';, 
or  on  that  of  the  futTering  perfon.  It  was  not  on  the 
part  oï  ftcond  caufes i  for  the  torments  of  the  martyrs 
L 


5LCT.   lil.  122  CHAP.  I  v. 

v/ere,  I  v.ill  not  fay  ejunl  in  cUiration  and  degree,  but 
Vi\  n-:any  infltmces  '^rsaûy  fu/.cfior.  ÏJor  on  the  part 
cF  \\\Q  Jiiffiring  [fvfjn ;  becp.iifc  Chrid-  had  incomparably 
ii-iore  Itrength  and  holinefs  than  the  mariyrs.  It  mufl 
then  have  been  on  the  part  of  God,  who  minidered 
abundantly  mere  confobtion  to  the  martyrs  than  he  did' 
to  Jtfus  Chriir.  Bat  wliy  fo,  if  he  did  not  look  upon 
him  as  the  (înner's  lîibititute  r  Considered  as  the  Son- 
of  God,  he  was  always,  even  uhtn  he  hung  on  the  crofs, 
the  object  of  his  Father*s  inlinite  lo-ve  :  confequently,  li 
God  had  viewed  him  under  that  charadler  only,  he' 
would,  in  the  time  of  his  fufferings,  have  been  a  partaker 
of  joys  vatUy  faperior  to  thofe  wliich  tlie  martyrs  pof- 
Isffed. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  faid,  *  Chi  if!  was  perfectly  holy 

*  and  entirely  innocent  when  he  fuffered  death  ;  not  fo 

*  the  martyrs.* — They  v/ere,  however,  innocent  with 
refpect  to  the.  caufe  for  which  they  fuffered.  Eefides, 
the  fenfe  of  a  man's  innocence  does  not  ufe  to  aggravate 
his  fufferings,  but  rather  to  fipport  and  comfort  him 
under  them.  This  Jeftis  himfelf  declares,  when  he  fays  ; 
*'•  Blefled  are  they  which  areperfecuted  for  righteoufnefs 
*'  fdke.*' — Equally  unavailing  wouJd  it  be  to  fay,  *  Jefus 

*  was  the  f.rlt  in  fuffering  fuch  afHidlions  ;  and  they  who 
«  fet  the  example  generally  fuffer  mod.'  For  it  is  not 
he  that  he  was  the  firft  martyr.  He  himfclf  tells  us, 
that  the  prophets  were  perfecuted  before  him  ;  and 
encourages  his  difciolcs,  by  this  very  corfideration. 
And  though  this  might  ferve  to  jijÛify  a  fmall  difference, 
between  h.  number  of  fufferers  ;  yet  it  cannot  pofiibly 
account  for  that  amazing  difparity  which  is  found,  if 
v/e  only  confider  external  things,  .between  the  fortitude 
of  Chriil:  and  that  of  the  martyrs. — It  was  not  long 
after  the  death  of  Jefus  that  Stephen  was  Pioned.  The 
^rcat  number  of  martyrs,  therefore,  whom  he  had  feen- 
die  for  the  truth,  could  not  have  raifcd  his  patience  and 
courage  to  that  heroical  pitch,  v/hich  he  difcovered  on 
the  occafion.     Yet  thofe  virtues    flione  with  a  much 


<^CT,   ÎIÎ.  123  CHAP.   IVo 

"brigiitcr  ladre  in  him,  than  tliey  did  in  his  dyir^g  MaHer, 
if  we  only  regard  outward  appearances.  The  latter  Is 
immerfe.d  in  forrow  ;  the  former  is  elevated  with  joy. 
And,  when  furroundcd  hy  his  cruel  enemies,  he  cried 
net  ;  *'  Behold,  I  fee  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son 
*•  of  man  (landing  on  ihc  right  hand  of  God  !"  One  is 
affl:i5led  beyond  mcafure  in  his  thoughts  of  God,  and 
^fays;  **  My  God!  my  God!  why  ha! i  thou  rorfakcn 
**  me  ?"  The  other  is  tranfported  with  glad  nefs,  at  the 
fight  of  his  afcended  Lord  ;  and  the  joy  which  Tpaîkies 
In  his  eyes  and  fliines  in  his  coun:enunce,  renders  his 
Jacc  like  that  of  an  angel.  Who,  now,  on  the  Sccinian 
rtypothefîs,  can  account  f.)r  this  aftoniihing  difTevencc. 
Some,  indeed,  have  fuppofed,  *  That  the  body  of 

*  Chrid,  being  formed  immediately  by  the  Holy  Gho'U 

*  w-is  more  lenfible   of  pain   than    the   bo.iics   of  other 

*  men.' — Bat  who  is  able  to  prove  that  a  body  mud  be 
more  fenfible  of  [>ain,  becaufc  it  was  formed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  is  the  refidence  of  perfcvfl  hoiinefs  ? 
iBefides,  Jefus  did  not  fuffer  in  his  bodv,  when  he  was 
.in  the  garden   of  Gethfemanc.     His  futTerings   were 

then  of  a  mental  kind  ;  yet  fo  great  were  they  that  he 
fweat  blood.  Nay,  hs  exprefsly  declared,  that  his 
foul  was  forrowfal,  e.'^ceeding  forrowful,  forrowful  €\(^\ 
unto  death;  when  no  human  hand  was  upon  him, 
when  no  human  enemy  was  near  him,  and  before  he 
fuffered  the  lead  pain  in  his  body,  except  what  was 
occafioned  by  the  agonies  of  his  mind.  The  frowns  of 
his  Father,  who  was  then  aflening  the  rights  of  his 
violated  law,  were  chiefly  fenfible  to  him  throiigh  tho 
whole  of  his  pafiion.  Thefe  penetrated  his  very  foul. 
It  evidently  appears,  from  the  hidory  of  his  fuffering?, 
that  his  bodily  pains  did  not  ruffle  the  temper  of  his 
mind.  He  had  as  much  command  of  himfelf,  in  that 
refpe^fl,  when  he  hung  on  the  crofs,  as  when  in  familiar 
converfe  with  his  difciples.  Witnefs  that  faying  to  hi* 
mother,  "  Woman,  behold  thy  Son  I"  and  to  the 
•.Moved  difciple,  ♦«  Son,  behold  thy  mother!"  Witnefu 
L  2 


y^ECT.   III.  124  CHAP.    IV. 

slfo  his  glorious  promire  to  the  penitent  thief;  *'•  Verily 
*'  I  fay  unto  thee,  this  day  (halt  thou  be  with  me  in 
**  paradife." — To  as  little  purpofe  would  it  be  to  fuppofe, 

*  That  his  overwlielming   forrows  were  occalioned  by 

*  the  bafe  ingratitude  of  the  Jews.'  For,  to  jmblifh  the 
word  of  life  to  ungrateful  men,  and  to  be  recompenfed 
with  perfecurion  and  death,  were  common  to  him  with 
înultitudes  of  martyrs.  Belides,  this  was  far  from 
being  the  firft  time  that  he  experienced  the  ingratitude 
of  his  nation.  Nay,  he  very  well  knew,  long  before, 
that  this  ingratitude  would  run  fo  high  as  to  be  tlîc 
death  of  him  ;  and  of  this  he  had  informed  his  difciples. 
The  ingratitude  of  the  Jews  might  add  to  his  forrow  ; 
but  it  could  not  be  the  principal  caufe  of  his  anguilli, 
neither  in  the  garden,  nor  on  the  crofs.  Unlefs, 
therefore,  we  would  make  another  gcfpel,  we  mud 
acknowledge,  that  the  defertion  of  his  Father  lay  neareft 
his  heart.  He  confidered  the  time  of  his  paflion,  as 
*'  the  hour  and  power  of  darknefs  ;*'  when  infulting 
tongues  and  violent  hands,  the  rage  of  hell  and  the 
wrath  of  God,  were  all  united  to  plunge  him  deep  in 
accumulated  and  confummate  woe. — Once  more  ;  If 
the  approbation  of  God  ufually  comfort  them  that  fuffer 
in  a  righteous  caufe,  how  came  it  to  pafs  that  Chrift  was 
uot  relieved  by  it  ?  And  if  the  certainty  of  pofTeffing 
;?n  eternal  and  bltrffcd  life,  caufed  the  martyrs  to  (hed 
jheir  blood  with  joy  ;  fliould  not  the  certainty  which 
jefus  had,  not  only  of  living  in  confummate  happinefs 
for  ever,  but  aifo  of  making  others  everladingly  bleffed, 
fill  him  with  unfpeakable  joy  ?  What,  fhall  men  who 
tire  accuftomed  to  love  the  earth,  rejoice  to  leave  it  ; 
while  Jefus  Chrift,  who  is  perfe611y  free  from  every 
fordid  and  fin  fui  paflion  ;  while  He  who  is  the  perfe^ 
riattern  of  every  moral  excellence,  is  feized  with  a 
thoufand  mortal  terrors,  juft  as  he  is  going  to  heaven  ! 
This  is,  on  the  Socinian  principles,  abfurd  to  imagine  ; 
impoflihle  to  be  true. 


SECT.   III.  125  CHAP  V. 

To  conclude  :  If  Jefus  died  for  us  only  in  the  [tnfc 
of  our  adveifaries,  his  death  and  that  of  the  martyr? 
fland  much  on  a  level,  in  point  of  advantage  to  us. 
And  if  fo,  it  is  unaccountably  ilrange  that  the  Holy 
Gholl:  Hiould  put  fuch  a  ditTercnce  bsiwccn  the  one  and. 
the  other.  "  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  cr  uere  ye 
**  baptized  in  the  nan>e  of  Paul  ?'*  We  were  net, 
indeed,  baptized  in  the  name  of  that  apcftle  ;  but,  if 
the  dodrine  of  Socinus  be  true,  Paul  and  Jefus  mtfl 
have  died  for  us  in  the  fame  fenfe,  and  for  the  fame  ç.Vi'X, 


CHAPTER     V, 

■u'iic  fentimenfs  of  our  advcrf.;rics  render  the  language  of  Scrip» 
ture  obfcure  and  fulfe,  ablurd  and  impious. 

Jl  HÎS  is  the  Lui  of  thofe  propoGtions  v.diich 
we  engaged  to  prove  in  this  Seélion  ;  and  the  principal 
mean  to  fhew,  That  Chrill  and  his  apofiies  have  led  us 
into  a  complicated  and  pernicious  error,  if  the  fentiments 
of  our  oppofers  be  true. 

Thofe  paffages  of  Scripture  which  we  fliall  produce, 
on  this  occanon,  are  fuch  as  refer,  either  to  the  original 
(late  of  Jefus  Chriil,  or  to  his  pre-exiflence,  cr  fuch  as 
reveal  his  eternal  Divinity  ;   of  all  which  in  their  order. 

Of  the  frjl  fort  are  the  follov/in^r.  ««  What  and  if 
**  ye  fhall  fee  the  Son  of  man  afcend  where  he  was 
**  before  ? — I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
**  heaven — No  man  hath  afcended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
"  that  came  down  from  heaven — He  that  cometh  from 
*'  above,  is  above  all  :  he  that  is  of  the  earth,  is  earthly, 
**  andfpeaketh  of  the  earth  ;  he  that  cometh  from  heaven 
**  is  above  all — The  firft  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy  : 
**.ihe  fécond  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven— *  I  came  down 

i-  3 


SECT.  111.  126'  CHAP.  y. 

"  from  heaven,  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  tlie  will  of  him 
*'  tliat  fent  me — I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am 
•'  come  into  the  v/orkl  :  again,  I  leave  the  world,  and 
*'  go  to  the  Father — I  proceeded  forth,  and  came  from 
**  God  ;  neither  can>e  I  of  myfelf,  but  he  fent  me— 
*'  Now  that  he  afcended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  alfo 
•*  defcended  firft,  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  ?" 

In  thefe,  andfimilar  pafTages,  as  they  are  explained 
by  our  opponents,  v/e  can  difcern  neither  wifdom  nor 
propriety,  neither  truth  nor  commojn  fenfe,  but  quite  the 
reverfe.  For  all  that  we  find  in  Jefus  Chrifl,  confidered 
as  a  mere  man,  is,  that  he  had  afoul  created  immediately 
by  the  power  of  God  ;  that  "his  body  was  formed  in  the 
-womb,  by  the  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  ;  that  lie 
received,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  thofe  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Gtioft,  which  were  necefTary  to  difcharge  the 
work  of  his  minidry  ;  and  that  he  v/as  inveded  w^Lth 
his  office  and  fent  of  God  to  perform  it  among  men. 
13ut  if  Jefus  may  be  faid,  "  To  have  proceeded  from 
**  God  ;  to  have  come  down  from  heaven,  and  to  have 
"  been  with  God,  in  the  beginning  ;"  becaufe  his  foul 
■was  created  immediately  by  the  power  of  God  ;  the 
fame  things  may  be  affirmed  of  men  in  general.  For 
every  man  has  a  fpirit  that  returns  to  God  who  gave  it. 
Thus  it  might  be  faid  of  any  man.  What  and  if  ye  fee 
him  îïfcend  where  he  was  hefore  ?  And  each  might  fay 
of  himfelf,  I  came  down  from  heaven — 1  proceeded 
from  the  Father,  and  came  into  the  woild  ;  and  now 
I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father.  And  fo  every 
one  might  have  a  fharc  in  thofe  privileges  and  honours, 
which  have  been  always  confidered  as  peculiar  to  Jefus 
Chrift. — And  though  the  body  of  Chrift  was  formed 
by  the  immediate  power  of  the  Holy  G4ioft,  yet  that  is 
far  from  being  a  fufficient  reafon  for  thefe  and  fimilar 
«xpreflions  ;  "  I  came  down  from  heaven — I  came 
**  from  God."  For  Adam'^  body  was  formed  immedi- 
ately by  the  hand  of  God  ;  and  yet  the  Scripture  is  far 
^Qm  ipeakin^  Qf  gur  ^reat  prqgcniwr  after  ibis  inanacx , 


SECT.  in.  127  CHAP.  V. 

fo  far  from  it,   that   the  language  ufcd  is  of  a  dirccflly 
contrary  figRiiication.      For  the   Spirit   of  infpiraiion, 
ipeaking  of  Adam,  fays  ;  **  The  firft  man  is  of  the  earth, 
"**  earthy  ;  the  fécond  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven." 
*  Jefus  Chrilt,  h  will  be  faid,  was  not  only  conceived 

*  in  a  Divine  manner,   but  was  alfo  repleniflied  with  the 

*  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  in  that  refpedl 

*  he  may  be  fa»d  to  come  from  God,  and  to  come  down 

*  from  heaven  :   becaufe  it  is  the  work,  of  God  to  raife 

*  up  a  man  in  afupernatural  way,  and  to  endue  him  with 
**  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.      In  much  the  fame  fenfe 

*  as  when  it  is  faid,  *'  Every  good  gift,  and  every 
**  perfe»fl  gift,  is  from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the 
<*  Father  of  lights,'*  Or,  as  in  that  ouefHon,  **  The 
**  baptifm  of  John,  v/as  it  from  heaven,  or  of  men  :" 
and  in  oppofition  to  the  meaning  of  thofe  words, 
**  This  wifdomdefcendeth  not  from  above,  but  is  earthly, 
**  fenfual,  dcvilifti." — But  thefe  pafTages  are  fir  from 
-being  parallel,  arc  very  unfuitable  en  this  occafion. 
For  there  is  a  valt  difference  between  fpeaking  thus  of 
certain  qualities^  which  are  noffufceptible  of  local  motion  ; 
and,  confequently,  cannot  be  faid,  but  in  a  figurativ* 
fenfe,  to  go  or  come,  to  defcend  or  afcend  ;  and  fpeaking 
thus  of  a/><rr/à«,  who  may,  in  a  proper  fenfe,  be  faid  to 
4iefcend  or  afcend.  Befides,  it  is  plain  from  all  the 
circumdances  of  thefe  texts,  that  the  expreflions  adduced, 
es  examples,  ought  to  be  underftood  in  a  metaphorical 
fenfe  :  whereas  the  very  contrary  is  evident,  in  relation 
to  thofe  paiTages  which  we  have  juft  pioduced,  in  refpe<5l 
of  Jefus  Chrifi.  For  who  does  not  fee  a  local  afcenfion, 
an  afcenfion  properly  fo  called,  in  thefe  words  ;  "  What 
"  and  if  y^  fhall  ièe  the  Son  of  man  afcend  where  he 
•*  was  before  ?"  And  if  the  word  afcend  be  literal,  muft 
not  the  immediately  following  words,  nvhere  he  ivas 
before^  be  fo  too?  When  Jefiis  fays,  "  I  came  forth 
'*  from  the  Father  and  am  come  into  the  world  ;  again, 
**  I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father  ;"  who  can 
•jeafonably  doub^;  whether  he  came  from  ihe  FatJier  voA 


"SECT.   rn.  128  CHAP.  V. 

came  into  the  world,  in  the  fame  fenfe  in  which  he  /"peaks 
of  leaving  the  woild  and  going  to  the  Fathtr  ?  If,  then, 
he  left  the  world  and  went  to  his  Father  in  a  proper 
and  literal  fenfe,  he  mud,  in  the  fame  ftnfe  have  come 
down  from  the  Father. — Again  :  If  they  who  receive 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  who  are  fent  of  God,  and  who 
are  the  peculiar  work  of  his  power,  may  be  faid  to 
♦♦  come  down  from  heaven  ;"  nothing  could  be  more 
jiifi  than  to  afiirm  it  of  the  apoftles.  For  they  were 
endued  with  fupcr natural  and  wonderful  gifts  ;  they 
were  divinely  fent  ;  and  they,  both  in  regard  to  their 
regeneration  and  their  qualifications  for  the  apoUlefliip, 
were,  in  a  particular  manner,  the  work  of  God.  Yet 
the  Scripture  never  fays,  they  came  down  from  heaven. 
John  the  B:ipti(l  alfo,  was  holy,  in  fevcral  refpetfts  ;  and 
was,  in  various  ways,  the  work  of  God  ;  for  he  was 
holy  from  his  mothei's  v;omb,  filled  with  the  Holy 
GhoO,  raifed  up,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  and  fent 
of  God  ;  yet  the  evangelifts  are  (o  far  from  faying, 
"  he  came  dov.'n  froni  heaven,"  that  they  tell  us  he 
"was  of  the  earth."  For  thus  they  reprefcnt  the 
MeiTiah's  harbinger  fpeaking  of  his  Lord  and  of  himfeif  : 
•'  He  that  Cometh  from  above,  is  above  all.-é'  He  that 
**  is  of  the  earth,  is  earthly,  and  fpcaketh  of  the  earth  : 
**  He  that  Cometh  from  heaven,  is  above  all." 

The  enemies  of  our  Lord's  Divinity,  being  unable 

.to  fatisfy  either    themfelves  or  others,    endeavour   to 

extricate  themfelves  out  of  thofe  difficulties  with  which 

they  are   prcfied,  by  fuppofinjr  and  aficrting  ;    <  That 

*  Chtid,    before   he   entered   on    his    public    miniftry, 

*  afcended  into  heaven  ;  and,  having  received  in(lru61ions 

*  relating  to  his  important  work,  came  down  to  peiform 

*  the  various  duties  of  his  office.*  This  they  confider 
as  the  foundation  of  thofe  various  ways  of  fpeaking,  by 
■which  Jefus  is  rieprefented,  as  proceeding  from  the 
Father;  as  coming  down  from  above;  and  as  being 
the    bread    which  came    from  heaven.      All  which  is 

.Quickly  faid,  and  fooner  imagined  }  but  let  us  exacxiac 


SECT.   IIÏ.  129  CKAP.    V. 

tfiis  conie<^ure,  and  fee  whether  it  be  no:  contrary  to 
truth  and  probability. 

-  Whence,  then,  bad  they  tliis  account  ?  From  any 
evangelift,  or  any  of  the  in/j^ired  writers  ?  If  fo,  let 
them  produce  the  pa/Tage.  If  Jefus  did,  indeed,  afcenj 
bodily  intoheaven,astheyfuppole,  it  wasnofniall  miracle  ; 
£.nd,  confequently,  it  ought  not  toreftonthe  bare  aflerticn 
of  our  opponents.  Nay,  had  it  been  a  fad,  it  ought 
to  have  made  a  conHderable  figure  in  the  evangelical 
hiftory  ;  which,  neTcrthelefs,  is  not  the  c?.{e.  It  mud 
have  been,  however,  of  as  much  importance,  as  Eliza- 
beth's vifit  to  Mary-,  as  the  arrival  of  the  ealtern  Magi  ; 
as  the  account  of  our  Saviour's  journey  to  Jcrufalem  at 
twelve  years  of  age  ;  or  of  his  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
nefs.  It  was,  at  lead:,  a?  necdTary  to  our  cditication, 
that  the  facred  hiftorians  fnould  have  informed  us,  of 
his  being  caught  up  into  heaven,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
as  to  reprefcnt  him  elevated  by  the  devil,  and  placed 
on  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple.  It  was,  furely,  of  as  much 
rniportance  to  tdl  us,  that  he  had  been  for  fonie  time 
in  heaven  ;  as  to  inform  us,  that  he  fojourned  at  Naza- 
reth. "Was  it  neceiTary  to  mention  the  opening  of  the 
heavens,  at  his  baptifm,  and  the  defcent  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft  upon  him  ?  then,  certainly,  it  could  not  have 
been  impertinent  to  have  told  us,  that  he  v/as  taken 
bodily  into  heaven. 

Our  opponents  will  have  the  abode  of  Mofes  on  mount 
Sinai,  wiiilc  God  was  infbuôing  him  for  his  future 
fervlce  ;  to  be  a  type  of  this  fuppofed  rapture  of  Jefus 
Chrid,  and  of  his  abode  in  heaven  with  a  fimilar  view. 
But  they  do  not  confider  how  improbable  it  is,  that  the 
type  fhould  be  fo  exady  recorded  in  die  hiflory  of  the 
Old  Teftament  ;  and  that  its  accomplidiment,  which  is 
of  immenfely  greater  importance  to  mankind,  fliould  lie 
hid  under  a  vail  of  filence.  To  what  principle  can  wc 
attribute  this  o million,  on  fuch  an  interelHng  occafion,  in 
biftorians  who  relate  matters  of  much  lefs  confequencei 
Fqt,  next  to  thres  ^r  four  grand  fads,  fuch  as  tiic 


•SECT.  III.  130  CHAP,  r, 

death,  refurre^lion,  and  afcenfion  of  Chrift  ;  there  wîts 
no  one  event  in  the  hiiiory  of  our  Lord,  of  greater 
importance  to  113,  or  nriore  to  his  honov.r,  than  that 
which  is  in  quellion  before  us.  I  do  not  except  his 
transfiguration  ;  an  event  which  the  evangeliffs  relate 
with  ail  its  circv.mila'.ices.  Eecaule  it  was  much  more 
honourable  to  Jefus,  and  of  much  greater  confequence 
to  us,  for  him  to  afcend  into  heaven,  to  converie  fami- 
liarly with  his  Father;  than  to  converfe  with  Mofes  and 
Elijah,   on  the  Mount  of  transfiguration. 

What,  then,  can  be  faid  to  excufe  the  (ilence  of  the 
CvangeliPcs,  on  this  cccafion  ?  Did  they  prcpofe  to 
relate  only  fuch  things  as  referred  to  the  humiliation  of 
Jclus  ;  and,  on  that  account,  omitted  an  event  which 
feemed  to  regard  his  glorification  ?  But  this  is  contrary 
to  plain  fact.  They  relate,  with  great  particularity,  many 
glorious  and  wonderful  circumilances  which  attended 
the  birth  and  life,  the  death  and  refarreflion  of  their 
Divine  Mader.  What,  then,  can  be  faid,  to  juftify 
this  extraordinary,  unnatural,  and  incomprehenfible 
ûlence  ? 

But  what  necefiity  was  there  that  Chrift  fhould  afcend 
'into  heaven  ?  for  as  the  opinion  of  our  oppofers,  in  Uns 
rcfpeifl,  is  not  grounded  on  any  report  of  the  evangelifts, 
:they  muft   needs  eHablidi  it  on  fome  kind  of  nccejf-ty., 

*  It  was  neceflaiy,  Socinus  fliys,  that  Chrift  iliould  be 

*  conformable  to  Mofe?,  who  was  his  type.    As  Mofe^î., 

*  therefore,   was  wiih  God  on  the  mount;  fo  it  was 

*  neccfiaiy  that  Chrift  ftiould  be,  for  fomc  time,  with 

*  God  in  heaven.     Bcfidcs,  it  w^as  neceffary  that  Chri[^ 

*  fhould  go  up  into  heaven,  to  receive  particular  inftruc- 

*  tions,  refpeéting  the  truths  which   he   was  to  teach 

*  mankind.' — As  to  the  latter  of  thefe  aflertions,  it  may 
be  obferved,  that  local  motion  contributes  but  little 
towards  our  being  taught  of  God.  The  apoftles  were 
perfectly  inllrucled  in  the  truths  of  the  gofpel,  and  in 
the  myileiies  of  the  kingdom  of  God;  yet  they  were 
not  taken  up  into  heaven,  in  order  to  kar.a  what  they 


siiCT.  m.  131  CHAP.  r. 

fliould  preach  to  mankind,  or  what  they  fhould  write- 
for  the  ufe  cf  the  church  in  fucceeding  ages.  How, 
then,  could  fuch  an  afcenfion  be  necefl'ary  for  Him  who 
received  the  Spirit  without  rneafure  ;  and  who,  being 
holy  from  his  conception,  afloniîlied  the  Jewifli  dodors 
widi  his  wifdom,  when  bu:  twelve  years  of  age  ?  Nor 
did  John  the  B.iptift  afcend  ir.to  he?ven  to  learn  ijie 
Viii  of  God,  or  to  receive  quahlications  for  his  office; 
ye':,  fo  foon  as  he  fiiw  Jefus  approaching  him,  he 
exclaimed  ;  ♦'  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
•*  away  the  fin  of  the  world!'*  Which  comprehenfive 
•words  contain  an  epitome  of  gofpel-trath.  But  why 
(Koiild  the  Mafler  be  at  more  pains  to  receive  inP:ru61ion 
than  the  fervant  ? 

*  There  was  no  nccefuty,  it  wlil  be  replied,  only  fo 

*  far  as  it  behoved  Chrift  to  be  conformable  to  Mofes, 

*  who  was  his  type.  For  as  the  latter  was  a  mediator 
'  between  Jehovah  and   the  Ifraelites  ;  fo  tlie  former 

*  between  God  and.believers.     As  the  one  informed 

*  the  feed  of  Jacob  of  God's  defign  to  deliver  them  out 

*  of  Egyptian  bondage  ;  fo  the  other  was  to  reveal  the 

*  merciful  counfel  of  God,  rcfpeding  the  redemption 
'  of  mankind  from  everlalHng  damnation.' — Is  it  not 
amazing  that  men  of  fjch  celebrated  parts  and  learning, 
iftiould  reafon  after  this  manner  ?  If,  then,  I  do  but 
imagine,  that  there  are  fuch  and  fuch  relations  in  the 
ancient  types,  I  am  fiilly  warranted  to  make  what 
additions  I  pleafe  to  the  evangelical  hidory  !  I  may, 
therefore,  fay,  Jefvîs  had  an  irnpediment  in  his  fpeech, 
becaufe  Mofes  had  :  Jefus  v/as  a  a  JJoepherd,  becaufe 
islofes  was. 

To  which  it  will  be  faid,   *  By  no  rncsns.      Becaufe 

*  it  is  not  what  Mofes  was,  or  did,  fimply  confidered  ; 

*  but  \vhat  he  did,  as  a  tybe  that  was  to  be  accomplifhed 

*  in  Chrift.      But  he  was  with  Jehovah  on  mount  Sinai, 

*  as  a  mediator  and  as  a  type.' — But  if  it  be  allowable 
fo  over-dretch  the  relations  which  there  are  in  the  types, 
what  is  there  that  mav  noi  be  n>a'ntained  ?    Hofet,  fw 


SECT.   Ht.  132  CHAP.   V. 

indance,  afcended  the  mountain  livlcg,  to  be  in{lru<5led 
in  tlie  law  and  will  of  the  Lord  ;  muft  we,  therefore, 
conclude,  that  Jefus  went  up  twice  into  heaven,  on  a 
fimilar  account  ?  Mofes,  when  on  the  mount,  fafieJ 
forty  days  and  forty  niglits,  and  that  once  and  again  ; 
mufl  we  from  hence  infer,  that  Chi  id  went  up  into 
heaven  a  firft  and  a  fécond  time,  and  that  he  fafled 
twice,  when  there,  for  an  equal  fpace  of  time  ?  The 
former,  coming  down  from  the  mount,  braie  the  tables 
of  the  law  ;  and,  defccnding  from  it  a  fécond  time, 
brought  other  tables  wfth  him,  which  were  preferved  ; 
was  there  any  thing  fimiiar  in  the  conduél  of  Jefus  ? 
When  Mofes  came  down  from  the  mount,  fo  great  was 
the  Ivfire  of  his  countenance  that  the  Ifraelites  could  not 
fteadily  behold  him,  till  he  had  put  a  vail  on  his  face  ; 
but  will  any  one  fa)',  that  the  countenance  of  Chrift 
ihone,  when  he  came  down  from  heaven,  and  that  he 
alfo  was  obliged  to  vail  his  face,  before  his  difciples 
could  convcrfe  with  him  ?  None  will  pretend  to  carry 
the  parallel  fo  far,  between  the  Jewifh  lawgiver  and  his 
glorious  Antitype.  Confequently,  as  the  relations  of 
the  types  ought  not  to  be  carried  to  excefs,  it  is 
unwarrantable,  it  is  abfurd,  to  ground  the  truth  of  a 
îîippofed  fadt,  which  is  otherwife  unknown,  on  fuch 
comparifons  as  may  be  juflly  elteemed  the  flights  of 
imagination. 

^ut  were  we  to  admit  the  conjeâure  of  our  adverfaries, 
their  caufe  would  receive  but  little  advantage  from  it  ; 
becaufe  it  would  not  be  fufEcient  to  juftify  thofe  expref- 
fions  which  defcribe  our  Lord  as  coming  doivn  from 
heaven.  For  fuppofmg  he  did  afcend  into  heaven, 
yet  he  was  there  but  for  a  fhort  fpace  of  time  :  he  did 
not  afcend  thither,  as  to  a  place  where  he  fixed  his 
ordinary  abode,  that  being  peculiar  to  his  fécond  afcen- 
fion.  Why,  then,  (hould  the  Scripture  fay,  He  was 
to  afcend  "  where  he  was  before?'*  Where  he  <was 
hfore:  Can  this  be  fpoken  of  a  tranfient  abode  in  heaveo 
for  a  few  days  ?  Paul  was  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven  j 


nEct.  in.  133  cHAi-,  v^ 

but  was  it  proper  to  fay,  at  his  death,  His  im mortal 
fpirit  is  gone  where  he  was  before  ?  Jefus  went  up  to 
Jerufalem  at  the  folemn  feafls  ;  could  it  be  faid  of  him, 
the  fccond  time  of  his  going  tiiither,  He  is  gone  where 
he  v/as  before  ?  Would  not  fr.ch  language  intimate,  tha: 
he  had  been  ufed  to  make  his  ahcde  at  that  renowned 
ciiy,  and  fo  convey  a  falfe  idea  ?  Or,  could  it  be  faid 
of  Mofcs,  the  fécond  time  he  went  up  to  the  mojr.'. 
He  is  gone  up  ^hcre  he  was  before  ? — Befidcs,  it  is 
net  common  for  the  Scripture  to  fay,  Jefus  lunit  vp  to 
heaven  ;  but,  "  he  came  from  heaven  ;  he  came  dor^in 
*'  from  heaven  ;  he  can:e  frcm  God  ;  h^  proceeded  from 
*'  tlie  Father,"  and  was  to  go  to  him,  as  he  came  from 
him.  Which  exprelTions  plainly  Ihcw,  that  he  came 
down  from  heaven,  as  from  his  natural  place  ;  not  that 
he  went  up  into  heaven  by  a  miracle,  to  be  there  only 
for  a  few  caj^s.  So,  in  reference  to  Paul's  rapture,  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  fay,  He  came  from  heaven  ;  he 
came  down  from  heaven;  he  came  from  God  ;  though 
this  v/as  a  fact  :  becaiife  it  is  not  fo  much  his  defcent  frcm 
heaven,  as  his  afcenfifjn  thhher  that  is  tlie  object  of  our 
admiration.  Acccrdir.g,  therefore,  to  this  peculiarity 
of  our  opponents,  it  would  have  been  much  more  proper 
for  the  facred  writers  to  have  told  us  repeatedly,  that 
Jefus  '■jcent  up  into  heaven  ;  than  for  them  fo  frequently 
to  fay,  he  came  doivn  from  heaven.  For,  if  the  former 
be  a  fact,  the  latter  cannot  be  doubted  ;  becaufe  we 
behold  him  on  earth,  preaching  the  word  and  perform- 
ing miracles  ;  but  that  he  afcsnded  to  heaven,  is  what 
we  did  not  know,  and,  therefore,  fliould  have  been 
informed  of  it. — When  the  heroes  of  ancient  Rome 
were  honoured  v/ith  a  triumph,  it  was  common  to  fay, 

*  They  lienl  up  to  the  capitol  ;'  becaufe  that  was  the 
mod  remarkable  thing  in  the  whole  procclfion.  But 
they  never  thought  of  fayirg,  with  an  en^phads  ;  *  They 

*  camedo'wn  from  the  capitol  ;'  becaufe  theirdtfcent  from 
it  was  far  from  being  fo  connderab]e  as  their  going  up 
to  it. — So  of  die  Jews  it  ufed  to  be  faid,  '  They  w(r.t 

M 


?riCT.  III.  ^3)-  CHAP.  V. 

«  tip  to  Jcn.r.Jcm  every  year,  from  all  the  parts  .of 
»  their  country,  to  worfnip  tiiere.'  This  was  ncceffriry 
to  be  known  :  rriuch  more  fo,  than  that  \.\\ty  came  dotcn 
every  year  from  that  metropolis,  ihou<;h  the  latter  was 
equally  true  ;  becaufe  it  is  net  the  principal  thing,  to- 
which  both  Scripture  and  reafon  require  that  v.'e  fiiould 
attend.  Thus,  if  jtfus  v.cnt  up  to  heaven,  and  came 
down  from  thence,  after  having  continued  there  a  fjw 
davs  ;  it  was  of  incomparably  more  importance  to  us, 
to  be  informed  of  his  afcenfion^  than  of  his  (Iffcetifwn  ;  and 
yet  thiC  Scripture  fpei;i:s  frequently  of  the  Icatcrt  i^t)t  at 
all  of  the  fonnsr. 

Still  further  to  confute  the  ungrounded  conjecture 
and  illuilrate  the  point  :  Suppofe  we  met  with  a  llranger, 
v.ho  fiiould  talk  after  this  manner  ;  *  I  came  from  Japan, 
'  and  I  go  to  Japan.     Ye  fliall  foon  fee  me  return  where 

*  I  was  before.     I  departed  from  J?-pan,  and  1  landed 

*  in  this  country  ;  not  to  do  my  cv/n  bufinefs,  but  the 

*  bufinefs  of  the  king  of  Japan.     Ye  are  of  this  country, 

*  but  I  am  of  Japan.      I  came  from  the  king  of  Japan, 

*  and  landed  in  this  country  ;  I  alfo  leave  this  country, 

*  and  go  to  the   king  of  Japan,  for  he  fent  me.     Now 

*  that  I  am  to  return  thither,  what  is  it  but  that  I  was 

*  fent  into  this  country?  He   who  is  of  this  country, 

*  fpeaks  as  the  men  of  this  country  ;  but  a  man  who 
•*  came   from    Japan,    fpeaks   as   one   of   that  empire» 

*  None  of  you  ever  was  at  Japan,    except  myfelf  who 

*  came   from  thence,    and  who  refide,  or   who  am  in 

*  Japan.' — Now  I  appeal  to  our  adverfaries,  and  1  take 
all  mankind  to  witnefs,  what  is  the  natural  impreflicn 
\;hich  thefe  declarations  ought  to  make  on  our  minds. 
Do  they  naturally  raife  in  our  minds  an  idea,  that  he 
who  fpeaks  thus  is  an  European,  who  has  been  at  Japan 
a  fortnight,  or  a  month  only,  and  is  quickly  to  return 
thither  :  Or  do  they  inform  us,  that  he  is  a  native  of 
Japan  who  had  long  refided  there,  and  is  fpeedily  to 
return  to  his  ov/n  country  ?  It  muft,  certainly,  be  proper 
for  fuch  an  one  to  fay,  *  I  came  from  Japan  j  I  cam« 


.•SECT.  III.  135  CHAP,  r, 

«  forth  from  Japan  ;  I  am  of  Japan.*  But  as  for 
an  European,  who  had  been  there  for  a  few  days,  or 
weeks  only,  he  would  fay  ;  *  I  have  been  as  far  as  Japan  ; 

*  I  have  been  at  Japan  ;   I  have  feen  Japan.' 

Again  :  It  is  very  obfervable,  that  the  Scriptuic 
exalts  Chrift  above  all,  becaufe  "  he  came  from  above.'* 
This  is  a  pertinent  and  conclufive  reafon,  if  he  came 
from  heaven,  as  from  his  natural  place  ;  but  is  far  from 
being  fo,  if  he  only  came  down  from  thence,  after 
having  miraculouily  afcenJed  thither.  Oi  if  conclufive, 
we  nriy  for  the  fame  reafon  aflcrt,  that  Paul  is  ubcve  all  ; 
beca.ife  he  partook  in  the  fame  honour,  having  been  rapt 
up  into  the  third  heaven. — Nor  does  Jcfus  barely  fay, 
•'  I  came  down  from  heaven  ;"  he  alfo  gives  his  reafon 
for  it.  *'  T  carne,  fays  tl^e  great  Redeemer,  not  to 
*'  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  tliat  fent  me." 
He  exprefsly  gives  tlie  reafon  why  lie  cane  doivn  from 
heaven  ;  but  fays  not  a  word  why  he  «wr/i/  up  thither  ; 
which,  on  the  principles  of  the  Socinians^  is  abfolutelv 
unaccountable,  is  highly  abfurd.  For  it  is  as  if  Mofes 
had  laid  to  the  Ifraeliics  ;  *  I  come  ùoivn  from  the  nicun" 
<  for  fuch,  or  fuch  a  purpofe  ;*  without  ever  informing 
theiri  that  he  tuent  up  thither  and  converfed  with  God. 
In  fuch  a  cafe  they  might  well  have  replied  ;  *  As  the 
«  mount  was  not  the  place  of  your   abode,    we  are  fur- 

*  prifed  at  your  afcendirg  that  eminence  ;  but  we  do  not 

*  wonder  at  your  coming  dov/n.      Tell  us  firrt  why  you 

*  went  up  ;  and  then  you  may  let  us  know,  if  you  pleafe, 

*  why  you  came  down.* 

The  apoftle  forms  an  oppofltion  between  the  firH:  and 
the  fécond  Adam.  *'  The  (i\[\  man  is  of  the  earth, 
*'  earthy  ;  the  fccond  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven.'* 
By  which  it  appears,  that  as  the  earth  was  the  natural 
place  of  the  firll  man,  fo  heaven  mufl  le  \.hz  natur^.i 
place  of  the  Second.  And  as  thefe  words,  "  The  lir(c 
*'  man  /x  of  the  earth;''  do  not  merely  iîgnify,  th  it 
Adam  was  for  a  few  moments  in  the  earth,  and  was 
.■.ufterv/ards  raifed   out  of  it;  but  that,   before  he  was 


^£CT.  m.  136  CHAP.  V. 

t  livened  by  the  brcaih  cf  God,  he  was  in  the  earth,  as 
i  1  his  cr-ginal,  or  n^.tnral  place  :  To  thcfe  words,   "  The 

*  fécond  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven^^''  do  not  only 
f  gnify  that  Chrift  came  from  heaven,  after  having  been 
there  a  few  days  ;  but  that,  before  he  defccnded  to 
earthy,  he  had  been  always  in  heaven,  as  in  his  proper 
■J'^\à.  natural  place. — From  all  which  it  is  evident,  if 
J-^fus  be  by  nature  a  mere  man,  that  various  pafTages  of 
iScripture  are  cbfcure  and  unintelligible.  Nor  will  it  be 
i-.ny  diiExlt  matter  to  prove,  on  the  fame  hypotheiis, 
that  they  are  falfe,  abfurd,  and  impious.  In  order  to 
which  I  would  propofe  the  following  particulars  to  the 
reader's  confideration. 

The  partages  adduced  fliew,  with  others  of  a  fimiUn- 
>.^nd,  that  Chrifl  e?vi(ted  in  heaven,  before  his  concep- 
tion, as  in  his  natural  place.  For  what  elfc  can  be  the 
primary  import  of  fuch  expreffions  as  theft?  "What 
*'  and  if  ye  fhall  fee  the  Son  of  man  afcend  where  he 

*  was  before?  He  came  from  above — He  came  down 
'■  from  heaven — The  fécond  man  is  the  Lord  from 
*■'■  heaven."  But  this  idea  is  falfe^  if  Jefus  be  a  mere 
iv.an. — Again  :  Our  Lord  has  heaven  for  his  original, 
i;T  a  much  higher  fenfe  than  any  other  man.  For  tJie 
Scripture  oppofcs  him  to  all  others,  becaufe  they  ar-e 

from  Icluiv^  but  he  from  above  :  they  are  of  the  earthy 
l)vit  he  is  from  heaven.  But  this  reprefentation  is  not 
ii::cording  to  truth,  if  Jefus  be  by  nature  a  mere  man. 
For,  as  fuch,  he  cannot  be  from  above,  or  from  heaven, 
Lut  eiiher  becaufe  he  had  God  for  his  original  ;  or 
becaufe  God  fent  him  ;  or  becaufe  he  was  replenifhed 
with  Divine  gifts;  or  becaufe  he  was  predeftinated  to 
the  glory  of  heaven.  But  all  thefe  particulars  agree  to 
other  men.  For  God  is  the  immediate  caufe  of  their 
fouls.  He  immediately  produced  both  the  body  and 
foul  of  the  fir  ft  man.  lie  fent  the  prophets  and  apollJes, 
and  endued  them  with  extraordinary  and  miraculous 
gifts.  He  prcdeftinated  his  people  to  the  enjoyment  of 
e'.erna'   happincG;    and    Gts   them,    by  the  fan(5lifying 


•SECT.  Ill*  Ï37  CHAP.  V. 

influences  of  the  Koly  Ghofl,  for  the  fruition  of  "lory 
in  the  h'.jsvenly  world.  Confequently,  as  none  of 
thefe  characters  are  peculiar  to  Chrift,  but  common  to 
him  with  many  other  men  ;  prophets,  apolh'es,  and 
thoufinds  more,  may  be  faid  to  *'  come  from  above  ; 
•'  to  come  down  from  heaven  ;  and  to  come  from  God," 
in  the  fame  {'cvSq  in  which  thofe  words  are  applied  to 
Jefus  Chrirt. — So,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  believe 
our  opponents,  Chvill:  is  from  bsJowy  and  of  the  earthy 
in  the  fame  fcTife  that  we  are.  We  are  faid  to  he  from 
b^lozo,  and  to  be  ff  ihs  earthy  either  bccaufe  we  have  a 
grofs,  terrelhial  nature  ;  or  becaufj  cur  bodies  were 
firlt  taken  out  of  the  eanh.  Jefus  has  alfo  a  corporal 
nature,  and  his  body  was  formed  of  matter  which  came 
originally  from  the  earth,  as  well  as  ours.  Nor  would 
It  avail  to  fay,  *  That  it  was  refined  and  faîliioncd  by 
*  the  Holy  Spirit.*  For  the  matter  of  which  the  body 
of  Adam  was  made,  received  its  human  form  fioni  the 
immediate  power  of  God. 

In  a,  word,  Chrift,  on  the  So:inian  piinciples,  may 
be  conGdered,  either  zz  a  man,  or  as  a  mefienger  of 
God.  Under  the  lattsr  of  thefe  confiderations,  he 
C'xmQ  from  above;  he  came  down  from /jeuven  ;  becaufc 
his  call  was  immediately  from  God.  But  then  if  this 
were  the  only  fenfe  in  which  he  c^me  from  God,  he 
would  have  no  pre-eminence  above  the  ancient  propliets. 
if  v/e  confider  him  under  the  former  view,  he  muft 
have  come  from  heaven,  either  in  refpeft  of  his  body, 
or  in  regard  to  his  foul.  If  the  /alter,  becaufc  it  was 
'brought  into  exigence  by  the  immediate  pcv/er  of  God  ; 
he  has  no  advantage  above  men  in  general.  For  it  is 
written,  "  The  fpirit  fhall  return  to  God  who  gave  it." 
if  the  former,  becaufe  it  was  produced  by  Divine 
power  ;  it  is  common  to  him  with  other  men.  If  on 
account  of  its  being  produced  in  a  miraculous  manner  ; 
•it  is  an  honour  in  which  ifaac  and  John  the  Bapti/I: 
fhared.  If  becaufe  it  v/as  produced  zviikoiit  the  interven- 
(ion  of  man  j  1 1  is  common  to  him  wiih  the  firlt  Adam. 
M  3 


SECT.  m.  138  >CHA1%   V, 

This  leads  me  (o  obferve,  that  thofe  paflages  of 
v^ciipture  fiom  which  we  argue,  naturally  fuggell  to 
our  miiids,  not  only  that  Jefus  came  from  above  and 
came  down  from  heaven,  in  a  much  nobler  fenfe  than 
rien  in  general,  or  than  tlie  firft  man  in  particular; 
but  alio,  that  it  is  in  this  very  refped,  that  he  is 
incomparably  fuperior  to  our  common  parent,  the  firft 
Adam.  According  to  that  faying  ;  <«  The  firft  man  is 
*'•  of  the  earth,  earthy  ;  the  lecond  man  is  the  Lord 
*'  from  heaven."  But,  if  Jefus  be  a  mere  man,  this 
mull  be  falfe.  For,  as  fuch,  he  comes  of  the  earth, 
as  cur  great  pregenitor  did,;  and  the  firft  Adam  came 
fiom  heaven  in  much  the  fame  ft-nfe,  as  the  Second. — 
Again  :  The  Scriptures  teach  us  to  confider  Jefus  as 
liumbling  and  abafing  hinifelf,  when  he  came  into  cur 
world  ;  becaufe  they  reprefent  him  as  comiKg  from 
heaven,  a  place  cf  perfect  holincfs  and  glory  ;  to  eartli, 
\»hich  is  the  refidence  of  impurity,  diforder,  and 
trouble. — Thus  it  appears  that  the  pafTages  we  have 
examined,  are  calculated,  on  the  Socinian  hypothefis, 
to  raife  fulfe  ideas  in  our  minds. 

The  above  declarations  of  the  Holy  Giioft,  if  under- 
{locd  according  to  the  fentiments  of  our  opponents, 
prcfcnt  us  with  a  fenfe  which  is  aljurd  and  ridiculous. 
To  prove  this,  we  need  only  confider  them  in  connec- 
tion with  their  comment.  When  explaining  thcfe 
Vords  ;  "  What  and  if  ye  fliall  fee  the  Son  of  man 
*'  afcend  where  he  was  before:"  they  pretend  that  thts 
claufe,  "  where  he  was  before  ;"  is  to  be  underilood 
fguratively.     *  Jefus  means,  fay  they,  that  the  Son  of 

*  man  had  been  in  heaven,  before  he  afcended  thither 

*  after  his  refurre<fiion  :  not  only  becaufe  he  was,  lorg 
«before  that,  continually   in  heaven,    by   meditation  ; 

*  but  alfo  becaufe  he  had  a  knowledge  of  all  celefHal 
«  things,  even  the  mofl  Divine  fecrets  ;  and  all  things 

*  which  exift  and  are  done  in  heaven,  were  fo  well 
■«  known  by  him,  that  he  faw  them  as  clearly  as  if  they 

*  had  been  before  him.     So  that,  thoii^h  he  was  ai 


S-ïCT.  III.  Î39  CHAP.   V. 

"*  earth,  yet  he  was  ah'b  in  heaven.* — But  how  abfurd, 
how  ridiculous,  does  this  text  appear,  under  the  difguife 
of  fuch  a  comment  !  What,  are  to  be  in  heaven,  and  to 
think  on  heaven,  fynonymous  phrafes  !  Who  ever  ufed 
them  as  fuch  ?  Why  does  Chriit  make  ufe  of  a  verb 
which  fignifies  the  time  pijl^  when  he  ou^ht  to  exprefs 
the  time  prejent?  If,  when  he  uttered  thefe  words,  he 
intended  to  (ignify,  that  he  y/as  in  heaven,  in  regard 
io  his  thoughts  and  meditations  ;  why  did  he  not  faj.. 
What  and  if  ye  fhall  fee  the  Son  of  man  afcend  where 
lie  no'jo  is?  What  can  be  the  meaning  of  thefe  words, 
"  Where  he  was  before  :"  Or  what  idea  are  we  to 
affi.K  to  the  term  before?  By  what  means  are  we  to 
learn,  that  the  Wifdora  of  God,  who  fpeaks  hteralJy, 
?s  all  agree,  when  he  fays,  *'  If  ye  fee  him  afcend  ;'* 
concludes  the  literal  fenfe  in  the  middle  of  the  fertence, 
^nd  tliat  the  rell  mufl  be  underPiocd  tîguratively  :  even 
though  tliefe  two  phrafes,  to  ofccnd — ivhere  he  teas — 
arc  fo  clofely  conneded,  tliat  alJ  mankind,  one  would 
have  thought,  muft  have  taken  them,  cither  both  in  a 
literal,  or  both  in  a  figuratiTe  fenfe.  How  can  they 
xivoid  feeing  an  oppofition  between  the  place  where 
Jefus  was,  before  his  incarnatloji  ;  and  the  place  where 
he  was,  when  he  uttered  thefe  words  ?  If  he  was  then 
upon  earth,  in  a  proper  fenfe  ;  he  mud,  according  to 
ihefe  words,  have  been  alfo  in  heaven,  in  a  proper 
fenfe.  What  hone^l  and  fenfible  man  ever  exprefied 
Jiimfelf  after  this  manner;  *  I  am  going  to  Japan,  where 

*  I  ivas  before;*  when  he  only  meant,  *  1  am  going  to 

*  Japan,  where  I  was  in  my  thoughts  and  difnes?' — 
Believers  are  exhorted  to  heavenly-mindednefs  ;  to  fet 
iheir  affedions  on  things  above  ;  but  they  are  never 
iaid  to  afcend  "  where  they  were  before."  For  though 
we  may  fay,  *  Our  hearts  are  in  heaven,  if  our  treafure 

*  be  there  ;'  the  metaphor  plainly  appearing  ;  yet  we 
cannot,  without  impertinence  and  nonfenfe  fay,  *  What 

*  and  if  ye  fliall  fee  us  afcend  where  we  were  before  .^ 
iîecaiife    there   is    nothing,    in    tiicfe    expreiEons^   b'ji 


5ECT.  m.  Ï40  CHAP.  V,' 

what  leads  us  to  confider  them  in  a  literal  fcufe  ;  and, 
thereflne,  the  mind  is  fnockcd  at  the  thought  of  a 
mctajjhor. 

Thcfe    words,    *'  I  came    down  from   heaven,"   as 
interpreted  by  them,  are  thus  to  be  underfl^ood.      *  My 

*  fiefti  was  formed  by  the  v/ondcrf  )1  counfcl  and  power 

*  of  God  and  fo  it  came  fiom  God  himftlf.  When, 
«  therefore,  it  is  faid,  that  Jcfus  Chrili  "  came  down 

*  from  heaven;"    no  more  is  intended,   than  that  he 

*  came  from  God.' — But  if  fo,  what  is  the  meaning  of 
that  faying  ;  **  The  firft  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy  ; 
**  the  fécond  man  is  ths  Lokd  from  heaven  ?" 
Adam's  body,  as  before  obferved,  was  formed  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God.  He,  therefore,  came  from 
God,  in  that  fenfe  :  he,  confequentiy,  according  to 
this  interpretation,  came  down  from  heaven,  as  well  as 
Jefus  Chrift. — Befides,  who,  that  is  not  blinded  by 
prejudice,  and  whcfe  judgment  is  not  perverted  by  a 
fanguine  attachment  to  an  unfcriptural  tenet; — who,  .1 
fav,  can  forbear  to  fee  a  very  different  meaning  in  thefe 
words,  "  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  my 
**  ov/n  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  fent  me;"  from 
what  is  contained  in  thefe,  *  My  fledi  was  formed  by 

*  the  wonderful  power  of  God  i"  For,  in  the  former^ 
■there  is  a  fending,  antecedent  to  a  coming  down  ;  and 

a  coming  down,  confequent  to  a  fending  ;  but  in  the 
latter^  not  a  tittle  of  all  this.  The  interpretation, 
therefore,  which  our  opponents  put  on  thefe  pafTiiges  of 
facrf  d  writ,  renders  them  abfurd  and  ridiculous. 

Once  more  :  The  lang'iage  of  Scripture,  in  the  texts 
before  us,  according  to  the  Socinian  creed,  is  not 
agreeable  to  common  modefty,  nor  to  that  refpe<ît  we 
owe  to  the  Deity  ;  and,  confequt^i.tly,  it  muft  be 
impious.  For  if  Jefus  be  a  mere  man,  he  is  of  the  earthy 
as  well  as  the  firft  man.  He  cannot,  therefore,  fo 
often  fpeak  of  "  coming  from  above  ;"  and  of  "  coming 
**  down  from  heaven,"  in  contradiilindion  to  the 
•original  of  other  men,  without  being  chargeable  wità 


•j| 


6£CT.  III.  141  CHAP.    VI. 

i-nmodtiîly  ;  without  being  guilty  of  arrogance. — 'Much 
lefs  cqn  it  be  faid  of  him,  as  a  mere  man,  *'  He  is  the 
*'  L.OR»  from  heaven."  We  do  not  ufe  to  {j>eak  thus 
cf  one  who  naturally  belongs  to  the  earth,  and  obtains 
the  inheritance  of  heaven  arid  the  title  of  Lord,  only 
by  grace.  On  the  contrary,  truth  and  modeily  require 
tljat  we  lliould  fay  ;  Jifjs  Chriit  being  of  the  earth,  i«:, 
by  nature,  earthly  ;  but,  by  the  favour  of  God,  he  is 
ihe  Lord  from  heaven.  Now,  as  one  cannot  be  void 
cf  modefty,  in  this  refpeft,  without  falling  into  impiety; 
becaufe  a  perfon  cannot  affame  fuch  honours  to  himfelf, 
without  infringing  on  the  glory  of  God  ;  fo  it  is  evident, 
that  the  language  of  Scripture  is  not  only  obfcure  and 
falfe,  not  only  abfurd  and  ridiculous,  but  alfo  impious; 
'if  Jefus  Qirid  be  a  mere  man. — The  Arian  hypothcii-s 
ùidll  be  confidered,  in  a  followiiig  chapter. 


CHAPTER     VI, 

r.viJcnces  of    the  fame  truth,  arifing  from  thofc  pafLges  of 
Scripture,    which    cxprofs    the:     Fre-exift:nce     of    Jesu« 

Ciixis  r. 

X  HE  Scriptures  inform  us,  thatChrid  exited 
before  he  was  conceived  in  the  womb  of  Mary  ;  that 
he  v/as  before  John  the  Baptilt;  that  the  prophets  were 
infpired  by  him;  that  he  was  before  Abraham;  that 
he  was  in  the  beginning  of  all  things  ;  and  that  he  was 
before  all  ages.  The  Divine  records  afTert,  that  he 
*'  was  in  the  form  of  God  ;"  and,  afterwards,  "  made 
"  himfelf  of  no  reputation,  by  taking  upon  him  the  form 
"  of  a  fcrvant."  He,  therefore,  muft  have  exi(ted 
before  his  humiliation  ;  and,  confequently,  before  his 
Conception  in  the  virgin's  womb. — The  fame  inf^Uiblç 


«ECT.   III.  142  CHAP.  Vr, 

rule  of  our  faith  declares,  tliat  he  "  was  made  of  the 
**  feed  of  David,  according  to  the  flefli.'*  Certainly, 
then,  in  his  wonderful  Ferfon  there  mud  be  a  nature 
di(hn(ft  from  th.e  human;  a  nature,  in  refped  of  which, 
he  was  not  made  of  the  feed  of  David. — An  unerring 
writer  calls  him,  "God  manifefl  in  the  fielh."  Which 
muftimply,  tlir.the  who  wasthus  manifefted,  exidedprior 
to  his  appearance  in  a  corporal  nature. — An  evangelill 
informs  us,  that  the  Word,  who  was  in  the  beginning, 
and  was  God,  "  was  made  flefh  :"  which  necelTarily 
fuppofcs  that  He  e>viiled  before  that  flelh  to  which  he 
was  united. 

Again  :  Jefis  hiirifelf  affirms,  with  a  folemn  aiTtvera- 
tlon,  a  kind  of  oath  ;  "  Verily,  I  fay  unto  you,  before 
*'  Abraham  was,  I  am."  Either,  then,  he  exilted 
before  that  renowned  patriarch  was  born,  or  his  words 
convey  a  falfe  idea  ;  that  being  the  natural  fignification 
of  the  terms,  and  the  firfl  imprefTion  they  make  on  our 
minds.  —  Peter»  fpeaking  of  the  ancient  prophets,  repre- 
ients  them,  as  ''  iearching  diligently  what,  or  whatt 
*'  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was 
**  in  them  did  fignify,  when  it  teflified  before-l.and 
■<*  the  fufferings  of  Chriit  and  the  glory  that  fliould 
*'  follow.'*  But  if  Jefus  did  not  exiil  in  the  times  of 
the  prophets,  they  could  not  fpeak,  they  could  not 
write,  by  his  Spirit,  or  by  his  infpiration.  Hence  w.e 
learn,  that  the  Spirit  of  Chrid  was  no  lefs  really  granted 
to  them,  under  the  Mafaic  œconomy,  than  he  was 
aftei  wards  to  the  apofllcs.  He  exided,  therefore,  in 
the  times  of  the  former,  as  well  as  in  thofe  of  the  latter. 
For  there  is  no  reafon  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Spirit,  by 
whofe  diredion  the  Hebrev^'  feers  predi*51:edthe  fuiTerings 
and  glory  of  God's  MefTiah,  is  called  the  "  Spirit  of 
*'  Chrill,"  merely  becaufe  they  prophefied  concerning 
him.  The  prophets  foretold  the  coming  and  minifhy 
of  the  apoftles  ;  but  is  that  a  fufncient  reafon  to  fay, 
that  the  Spirit  of  the  apolUes  was  in  them  ? — The 
4>çangeli(l  John  afieris,  that  Chriil  •*  was  in  ihe-begir.- 


jfECT.  îlî.  'I,-J  CHAP.  VI. 

f  nin^'T  ;  tint  he  was  v/ith  God  ;'*  and  that  <*  by  him 
**  all  dilngs  were  madt.'*  Confecuently,  he  exifted 
before  time  commenced,  and  before  the  world  was 
formed. — But,  not  to  multiply  quotations,  I  (hall  only 
once  more  obferve,  that  Chrill,  when  addrelTmg  his 
divine  Father,  fays;  *'  And  now,  O  Father,  glcrify 
**  thou  me  v.'ith  thine  own  felf,  with  the  glory  which  I 
*•*  had  with  thee  before  the  world  wa?»"  And,  in 
another  place,  wi^h  great  fokmnity  srd  with  Jin  air  of 
Divine  authority,  he  calls  hinifclf,  "  The  ^Ipha  and 
**  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the  End,  the  Fird  and 
"  the  Lafi."  Nov/,  if  we  admit  the  venerable  and 
augud  Speaker  to  talkfenfibly  and  to  mean  as  he  fpeaks, 
we  mufl  conclude,  that  he  exKled  before  the  creation, 
and  pofftfTcd  a  Divine  glory  prior  to  the  birth  of  time. 

To  judge  of  the  plain  and  natural  import  of  thefc 
pafiages,  we  need  only  to  conllder  the  imprefiion  they 
have  made  on  the  minds  of  men,  for  fo  many  ages,  fnce 
the  Scripture  was  penned.  The  Socinians  may  choofe 
what  arbitrators  they  pleafe,  to  determise  the  direct 
and  natural  lignification  of  the  exprefiîons.  If  they 
fufpeJl,  either  the  judgment  or  the  impartiality,  of  the 
orthodox,  will  they  trud  the  /Brians;  who  are  not 
prepofiliTed  in  favour  of  the  proper  Deity  of  Jefus 
Chrill,  any  more  than  themfelves  ?  But  if  they  Ihould 
confider  the  difciples  of  Arius  as  incompetent  judges, 
t^ill  they  trud  the  Mahom;tans ;  who  agree  with  Socinus- 
in  reje^fling,  not  only  the  eternal  Divinity,  but  alfo  the 
pre-cxiftence  of  Chrifl  ?  Yet  the  mufîulmen  will  teli 
them,  that  they  fee  the  fame,  in  the  pafTagcs  adduced, 
that  we  do  ;  which  obliges  them  to  reject  the  New 
Tedament,  as  being,  either  entirely  fuppoGiitious,  or 
e/Tentially  corrupted.  And,  indeed,  it  may  admit  of  a 
query,  whether  we  have  not  reafon  to  fufped  that  this 
is  the  fecret  pcrfuafion  of  our  adverfciries  ;  feeing  their 
interpretations  of  thefe  palTages  are  fo  various,  and 
fome  of  them,  fo  contradictory. — Is  it  propable,  for 
inflance,    that  the  natural  imnrtfllan  of  thefe  words. 


SECT.  III.  144.  CKA1\  VI. 

"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am  ;"  fuggefled  to  Sccinus 
rhat  inievprttation  of  them,  uhich  he  fays  coll  him  fj 
much  labour,  and  v  hich  God  did  not  difcover  to  him  till 
after  he  had  fpent  feveral  days  in  prayer  ?  And  yet,  it 
is  very  obfervable,  that  his  pretended  divinely  revealed 
fcnfe  of  the  text,  was  never  adopted  by  the  teachers  of 
his  perfuafion.  Nor  is  it  any  wonder  that  they  fhouli 
unanimoufly  icjecl  it.  I'or  if,  when  our  Lord  faid, 
**  Before  Abraham  was,  I   am  ;"  he  only  meant,   '  I 

*  am,  before  Abraham  was,  what  the  name  Aùrcham 
Magnifies;'  that  is,  The  father  of  many  nations  ; — in 
other  words.  That  Chriit  exiflcd  before  the  Gentiles 
became  the  children  of  Abraham  ;  if,  I  fay,  this  be  the 
meaning  of  Jefjs,  never  any  exprefiions  were  of  a  mors 
obfcure,  fallacious,  and  enfnaring  kind. — Eut  this  novel 
and  far  fetched  interpretation  is  abfclutcly  void  of  truth. 
For  thefe  words,  "  before  Abraham  was,"  do  not 
fignify,  *  before  that  eminent  patriarch  was  Abraham  ;' 
but  before  he  who  was  honoured  with  that  expreilive 
name  had  a  being;  before  he  was  in  ilse  world.  Even 
as  thefe  words,  *  Before  Fompey  the  Great  was  ;'  ào 
net  fignify,    *  before   Pompey  v/as  furnamcd,    or  was 

*  really  the  Great;*  but  before  he  extflciL — Befides,  the 
glofs  of  Socinus  renders  the  afTcrtion  of  Jtfus  abfurd. 
For  what  mighty  wonder  was  it,  that  He  fhould  exill 
before  the  Gentiles  became  the  children  of  Abraham  I 
The  very  meaneft  perfon,  who  lived  at  that  time,  might 
have  faid  the  fame  of  himfelf. 

But  another  Socinian  v/riter  gives  a  more  plaufible 
interpretation  of  the  text.      He  fuppofes,  *  that  Jefus 

*  was  before  Abraham,  in   the  fame  fenfe  in  which  he 

*  is  called,  the  Lamb  (lain  from  the  foundation  of  the 

*  world.*  In  anfwcr  to  which  I  obferve,  That  the 
two  partages  are  far  from  being  parallel.  The  hitter  is 
evidently  figurative;  as  appears  by  the  teim  JIuin,  or 
facrifced,  and  by  other  circumflances  of  the  text.     But 

in  the  former,  every  thing  leads  to  the  literal  fenfe.  It 
is  an  objed^ion  p«rely  literal  which  the  Jews  make, 


SECT.   III.  145  CHAI'.   VL 

when  they  fay  ;  "  Thou  art  not  yet  {iftv  years  old.'*^ 
Nor  does  the  text  before  us,  which  fo  (trongly  denotes 
the  pre-ex.!!!cnce  cf  Chrifl,  exprefs  any  thing,  when  ih 
underdood,  but  what  is  contained  in  great  numbers  o; 
others.  Befidcs,  to  render  thefe  two  pafiages  perfedlv 
limiiar,  we  muftfuppofe  it  recorded  in  Scripture  ;  *  Tkat 

*  Jefus,  being  in  the  form  of  a  facriilce,  was  afterwards 

*  pleafed  to  take  upon  him  the  forin  of  a  man — Tha*. 

*  he  came  from  fuffering  when  he  pnpeared  in  the  world 

*  — That  he  died  before  Abraham  was — That  his  cruci- 

*  fixion  and  death  were  from  ancient  times — That  he 

*  fuffercd  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was — 

*  And  that,  jufl  before  he  made  his  exit  on  Calvary,  he 

*  thus  addrefled   his    Father  ;    Behold   me,    ready    to 

*  endure  the  fame  fjfFerings   \vhich  I  underwent  with 

*  thee  before  the  world  was/  But  would  not  fach 
language  be  confidered  as  falfe,  abfurd,  and  ridiculous  ? 
Would  not  facli  a  way  of  fpeaking,  concerning  Jtfjs 
Chrid,  be  detefled  ;  even  though  it  muft  be  allowed, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  call  him,.  *'  The  Lamb  i\ùn 
**  from  tlie  foundation  of  the  world  V 

Further  :  In  the  piflage  quoted  from  the  Revcla:iun, 
there  f^ems  to  be  one  of  thofe  tranfpofiLions  which  a;e 
common  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  all  forts  of  aulhcrs  ; 
and  if  fo,  it  maybe  thus  rendered:  *'  And  all  that  are 
"  upon  thî  earth  (liall  worfiiip  him.,  whofe  names  are  not 
"  written,  from  the  foundation  cf  tlie  world,  in  the  book 
"  of  hfe  of  the  Lamb  flain  *."  Thefe  words,  "  from  tlu- 
**  foundation  of  the  world  ;"  being  connected  with, 
*'  written  in  the  book  of  life."  For  eternal  predeflina- 
tion  to  grace  and  holintfs,  to  happinefs  and  gi-jry,  is  the 
thing  intended  by  thofe  e:vpre;;;o:i5  ;  and  that  divine 
purpjfe,  refpeifling  the  chofen  of  God,  is  reprefented  as 
the  reafon  why  they  (hall  not  worihip  the  beait,  and 
perifîi  in  their  iniquity.  Such  being  the  general  ftnfe 
of  the  text,  it  does  not  feem  at  all  necelTary  to  fuj'pofe, 

*  Compare  Rev.  xvil.  8. 

N 


u2cr.  iir.  146  CHAP  vi; 

ihat  the  etcrna]  cfacacy  of  our  I.onrs  atonement  made 
on  the  crofs,  is  intended  by  thcTe  words  ;  *'  Slain  from' 
*'  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;"  though  we  readily 
allow,  that  all  the  ]ieople  of  God,  from  the  beginnings 
were  pardoned  and  faved  in  virtue  of  it. — And  though, 
according  to  this  tranflation,  tlie  tQirt)  Jlain  is  tranfpofed  ; 
yet,  when  it  is  confdered  that  Jefus  is  reprefented,  in 
the  Revelation  of  Jolin,  not  only  as  a  lamb,  but  alfo  a3 
a  lamb  JIain  and  Jucr'ificed ;  we  have  no  reafon  ta 
wonder  that  the  names  of  the  eleft  are  faid  to  be  written^ 
not  only  "  in  the  bock  of  the  Lambj^  but  in  that  of  the 
Lamb  Jlain, 

In  reference,  therefore,  to  thefe  words,  *'  Before 
"  Abraham  was,  I  am  ;"  our  adverfaries  muft  either 
fay,  that  Chrift  was  befoie  Abraham  in  the  purpofe  of 
God  J  or,  that  he  was  befere  that  illuflrious  patriarch 
became  the  father  of  many  nations.  But  thefe  interpreta- 
tions are  contemptibly  weak,  and  render  the  expreiiions 
abfolutcly  unworthy  of  the  Divine  Speaker.  Is  it  not 
very  furprifmg,  think  you,  that  ChrKl  (hould  have  exifted 
in  the  decree  of  God,  before  Abraham  was  born  I 
There  is  nothing  in  this  which  may  not  be  faid  of  all 
men,  univerfaily,  who  have  lived  fince  that  patriarch's 
time.  Is  it  not  alfo  afloniflring,  that  the  Meffiah  fhould 
exift,  before  the  Gentiles  were  become  the  children  of 
Abraham  ?  This  was  true  of  all  the  apoltles,  even  of 
judas  tlie  traitor.  And  was  it  to  confirm  fuch  childifh 
fancies  as  thefe,  that  the  Wonderful  Counfellor  and  the 
Wifdom  of  God,  made  ufe  of  that  folemn  afîeveration, 
verify?  "  VEraLY,  verily,  I  fay  unto  you,  before 
**  Abraham  was,  I  am." 

But  admitting  there  v/as  a  diiiiculty  in  this  pafiage, 
which,  to  us,  appears  fo  clear,  fo  exprefs  and  peremptory  ; 
yet  it  would  be  but  reafonable  to  explain  it  by  many 
other  parallel  places,  which  evidently  aflert  the  pre- 
cxillence  of  Jefus  Chrift.  It  is  an  eafy  matter  for  a  man 
of  learning,  of  genius,  and  of  a  fruitful  invention,  to 
find  out  a  number  of  fubtile  diftindions  j  but  it  k  not 


p 


«ECT.  III.  f43?  CHAP.  VII. 

(o  eafy  for  him  to  refl  fatisfied  in  them,  when  they  are 
invented.     When   they  tell  me,    for  inflance,  '  That 

*  Chrift  was  before  the  prophets,  and  before  Abraham, 

*  in  excellence  and  dignity  ;  and  that  we  undcriland  of 
"•  a  priority  in  exi//ence,   what  the  Scripture  fpcaks  of  a 

*  pre-«minence  in  dignity  ;*  my  judgment  cannot  acqui- 
d'ce  in  it.  For  the  word  of  infpiration  afTures  me 
repeatedly,  that  the  Lord  Redeemer  '•  is  the  Firfi  and 
*'  the  La(L"  Here  the  difHn(51ion  is  of  no  avail,  but 
rather  tends  to  embarrafs  them.  For  he  is  the  hrfl,  in 
thatiefi)e(5l  in  which  he  ouglit  to  be  the  lajl:  for  tiiey  will 
not  fay  that  he  is  the  laft  in  dignity.  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  a  priority  of  excellence  that  is  here  meant. — And 
how  comes  Ke  to  be  reprefented  to  us,  as  "  without 
.ieginning  of  days  ?"  We  cannot  examine  all  thofe 
•partages  which  fpeak  of  the  pre-exiftencc  and  eternal 
Divinity  of  our  adored  Redeemer,  but  we  fliall  confider 
:a  few  more  of  them  v/ith  particuUr  care. 


CHAPTER     FIL 

The  fame  Truth  evinced,  from  Phil.  ii.  5 — S. 

A^AUL,  in  his  epiflle  to  the  church  of  Chrift 
at  Philippi,  fays  ;  '*  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which 
*'  was  alfo  in  Chrifl  Jefus.  Who,  being  in  the  form 
•*'  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God: 
**  but  made  himfelf  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon 
*'  him  the  form  of  a  fervant,  and  was  made  in  the 
**  likenefs  of  men.  And,  being  found  in  fafhion  as  a 
*'  man,  he  humbled  himfelf,  and  became  obedient  unto 
**  death,  even  the  death  of  the  crofs." — This  empha* 
tical  and  admirable  paffage  is  thus  paraphrafed  by 
.the  ,Socinian3,  «  Who  being  in  ;he  form  of  God  ; 
N  2 


-;ncT.  III.  148  CHAP,  y II, 

'  commanding  the  creatures  snd  controlling  the  elements 

*  when  he   wp.s  v;pon  earth,  as  if  he  had  been  God  ; 

*  did  not  detain  and  obftinately  infill  on  an  equality 

*  with  God,  as  one  that    is  guilty  of    robbery.      But 

*  he  renounced  this  Cfjuality,    to  make  hinifelf  of  no 

*  reputation  ;  taking  the  form  of  a  fervant,  in  obeying, 

*  though  he  commanded  before,  being  treated  as  a  flave, 

*  and  becoming  like  ordibary  men  :  and  tliis  though  he 

*  was  before  in  the  form  of  God,  by  the  power  with 

*  which  he  wàs  invefled;  and,  (hewing  himfelf  obedient, 
'  he  fubmitted  to  the  death  of  tlie  crofs.' — Such  is  the 
interpretation  of  our  adverfaries.  But,  it  may  be 
obferved,  that  thefe  expreffions,  "  In  the  form  of  God 
•*  — thougiit  it  not  robbery — made  himfelf  of  no  leputa- 
*'  tion — took  the  form  of  a  fervant'* — fufter  manifeft 
\iolence  bv  this  explanation.  The  following  confidera- 
tions  may  ferve  to  ftiew  the  inconfiilency  there  is, 
between  tiie  text  and  the  comment. 

Wlicu  we  meet  with  a  fingular  exprelTion  in  Scripture, 
it  L3  natural  to  explain  it  by  fuch  as  are  parallel,  or,  at 
leaft,  have  fome  likenefs  to  it.  Our  opponents,  there- 
fore, if  they  confider  this  phrafe,  <*  being  in  the  form 
*'  of  God,"  as  extraordinary,  ftiould  compare  it  with 
ihufe  pafHiges  which,  in  their  natural  import,  fignify 
nearly  the  fame  thing.  Such,  for  inflance,  as  the 
following  :  *'  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word — The 
*'  Word  was  God.  All  things  were  made  by  him,  and 
**  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made. 
•'  The  true  God— God  blefled  for  ever." — Does  Paul 
inform  us,  that  our  Lord  was  "in  tlie  form  of  God," 
before  he  made  himfelf  of  no  reputation  and  took  upon 
•him  the  foim  of  a  fei  vant  ?  Conformably  to  this  John 
declares,  that  "  the  Word  was  in  the  beginning,  and 
*'  that  the  Word  was  God."  As,  according  to  the 
one,  the  Word  was  Gcd,  before  he  was  made  fltfh  ; 
fo,  according  to  the  other,  Chrid  was  in  the  form  of 
Gcd,  prior  to  his  taking  thi  form  ©f  a  fervant,  or  bis 


iJECT.  III.  149  CKAP.    VII* 

appearance  in  Iiuma.ti  nature.  Tivas  both  cxprefs  the 
fame  thing,  and  flinport  the  fame  truth. 

Whence  had  our  oppofcrs  their  lignification  of  the 
phrafe,  *'  being  in  the  form  of  God  ?"  In  what  language, 
human  or  Divine,  do  they  find  it  (ignify,  to  luovh 
miracles?  If  the  performance  of  a  multitude  of  miracles 
were  a  fufîicient  ground  of  faying,  that  he  who  wrought 
them  was  in  the  form  of  God,  Mofes  had  a  claim  to 
the  honour  ;  for  he  performed  aftonifhing  works  in  the 
air,  the  earth,  and  the  waters.  Nay,  the  apofUes  were 
•  in  the  form  of  God  ;  for  they  wrought  very  wonderful 
miracles,  even  greater,  in  fome  refpeds,  than  thofe  of 
•Chrid   himfelf,    in   purfuance   of  his   own   promife. — 

*  Jcfus,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  faid,  wrought  miracles  ia 

*  his  own  name  and  by  his  own  power  ;  but  the  apodlcs 
'*  performed  theiri;  in  the  name  and  by  the  power  of 

*  of  their  Lord.'  But  if  Jefus  wrought  miracles  in  his 
own  name  and  by  his  own  power,  our  oppof-rs  mufl 
cither  give  up  one  of  their  (trongefl:  obje^ions  againll 
our  fentiments,  or  contradlc^l  themfelves  in  the  moft 
.palpable  manner.  For  fome  of  the  mofl  learned  and 
-ingenious  among  them  fuppofe,  that  they  emoanafs  our 
xaufe  exceedingly  v/hen  they  remind  us  ;  **  That  Chri(t 
"  came  not  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that 
**  fent  him — That  the  doiflrine  he  taught  was  not  his 
*'  own,  but  the  Father's — And  that  he  who  believes, 
*'  does  not  believe  on  Jefus,  but  on  Him  that  fent  him.'* 
They  inUft  upon  it,  that  *  the  Father  was  the  chief 
■*  author  of  thofe  wonderful  works  which  Jefus  did  :  that 
;*  the  Father  was  the  real  author  of  his  refurredlion  : 
^  that  the  Father  does  all  things  by  the  Son,  and  that 

*  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himfelf.'  If,  then,  Jefus 
performed  miracles,  not  in  his  ov.'n  name  and  by  his 
ov/n  power,  but  in  the  name  and  by  the  povv'er  of  the 
Father  ;  he  was  no  more  independent  on  God,  when 
he  wrought  them,  than  the  apoftles  were  when  they 
aftonifhed  the  world  by  numbers  of  miraculous  faâc. 
Confec^ueDtly,  if  they  cannot  be  faid  to  have  been  <'  ia 

N  3 


bhCï.ii:»  130  CHAP,  viir 

**  the  form  of  Gcd,"  becaufe  they  did  nothing  but  in 
the  name  and  by  the  power  of  their  Mader  ;  neither 
can  Jcfus  be  fo  confideied,  becaufe  he  did  nothing  but 
in  the  name  and  by  the  power  of  his  Father. 

Nor  are  the  Socinians  able  to  fix  upon  the  //«<•, 
whtn  Chrid  was  *'  in  the  foim  of  God,"  without 
contradic5ting  thenifclves,  or  confronting  the  Scripture. 
For,  either  it  was  duiing  the  thirty  years  which  he 
lived  as  a  private  perfon  j  or  after  he  appeared  in  a 
public  charader,  between  the  time  of  his  baptifm  and 
that  of  his  death.  Not  (he  former  ;  becaufe  in  all  that 
fpace  of  time  we  do  not  find  that  he  wrought  any 
miracles.  Nor  can  it  be  the  Utter  ;  for  if  it  were,  Ix 
iMiifl:  have  afTumed  the  form  of  God  at  that  very  time 
when  he  began  mod  evidently  to  hu?nbk  himfelf  ;  even 
VvlKn  he  was  tempted  of  the  devil,  and  began  to  fjffet 
all  the  inconveniences  of  life,  and  all  the  outrage  erf 
peifccutioR.  Bat  is  it  polTibie,  without  the  mod  glaring 
improptiety  and  the  greatcd  abfurdity,  to  call  a  Ihte  of 
extreme  poverty,  and  diame,  and  affli-ftion,  a  **  being 
<'  in  the  form  cf  God  ?" — The  miracles  v/hich  Jefus 
vrought,  were  after  he  humbled  himfelf;  after  he  was 
laid  in  a  manger — after  he  efcaped  tiie  fury  of  a  tyrant, 
thirding  for  his  blood — and  after  he  returned  from  his 
exile  in  Egypt.  So  that  if  he  was  "  in  the  form  of 
<'•  God,"  becaufe  he  controlled  the  courfe  of  nature  and 
cxercifed  dominion  over  the  creatures,  in  the  wonderful 
miracles  which  he  performed;  it  muft  necedarily  follow, 
that  he  was  not  in  that  Divine  form  till  after  he  began 
to  humble  himfelf  and  to  make  himfelf  of  no  reputation  ; 
which  is  a  direct:  contradiftion  of  the  facred  text. 

Again  :  To  underdand  thefe  words,  "  Being  in  the 
♦»  form  of  God,  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
*'  with  God,"  in  the  fenfe  of  our  adverfaries,  is 
inconfident  with  the  occafion  of  them  and  the  fcope  of 
the  place.  Paul,  it  is  m?.nifed,  mentions  the  condudl 
-of  Jefus  Chrid,  as  a  wonderful,  adonidiing,  unparalleled 
«iudaF.ce  of  cçndiîfccufiOD,  with  a  view  to  eûfçrce  his 


€ECT.  m.  151  CHAP.  vri. 

exhortations  to  humility.  But,  if  jtfus  be  a  mere 
man,  or  only  an  exalted  creature,  it  is  no  woxnder  that 
he  *  did  not  obflinately  infifl,'  that  he  did  not  fo  much 
as  thirJ,  *  on  an  equality  with  God  :'  for,  in  fo  doing, 
he  would  have  been  guilty  of  Luciferiun  pride,  and  of 
•the  moft  impious  robbery. 

By  confidering  thcfe  tv/o  claufes,  in  their  proper 
«onnedlion,  "  bcinî:  in  the  foim  of  God — he  thought  it 
•"  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  ;"  we  have  a  further 
proof  of  tiie  truth  for  which  we  contend.  For  it  fs 
«evident,  that  our  Lord's  claim  of  *'  (qualify  with  God," 
■Is  here  founded,  by  the  apoftle,  on  his  '^  exidi ng  in  the 
*^form  of  God;'*  and  not  on  his  performing  of  any 
■works  whatever. — ^Nor  ought  the  two  terms  vzctp-vcji" 
and  KuCur,  which  (land  oppofcd  in  the  pafTarc,  to  be 
overlooked.  It  is  very  obfervablc,  that  tlie  apoflie  ufes 
^ho.  former  t  v./hen  ho  fpeaks  of  the  *'  form  of  God;" 
Hiferting,  that  Jcfus  exjfied  in  that  Divine  form  ;  plainly 
lignifying,  that  it  was  not  an  accidental  and  tranficnt 
.thing,  but  a  property  belonging  to  his  glorious  Pcrfon, 
2.nd  theiefore  permanent.  But  when  he  fpeaks  of  ihe 
oppofite  form,  he  employs  the  latter  of  thofe  cxpreflions, 
and  fays,  he  received  it  ;  evidently  denoting,  that  it  was 
not  effential,  but  foreign  and  accidental  to  him.  For 
he  who  receives. "à  form,  is  not  fuppofed  to  have  had  it 
always  ;  nor  is  it  confidered  as  efiential  to  him. — Befides, 
if  Jefus  be  a  mere  creature,  he  never  was,  nor  ever  can 
'be,  ftri-frly  fpeaking,  in  any  form  but  that  of  a  fervanty 
in  refpev5t  of  the  eternal  Sovereign. 

But  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  fpeaking  in  the  Scripture,  is 
his  own  bell  interpreter,  it  is  proper  to  compare  this 
paff.ige  with  otiiers,  in  order  to  fee  its  genuine  raeaninfr. 
When  the  apoflle  fpeaks  of  Jefus  Chrifl,  as  "  being  in 
"  the  form  of  God,"  as  being  **  equal  with  God  ;"  and 
yet  informs  us,  that  he  "  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a 
*' fervant,  and  made  himfelf  of  no  reputation;"  we 
^cannot  but  confider  ihe  Lord  Redeemer;  as  exiflin^  iii 


SECT,  nu  152  CHAP.  VU. 

two  very  different  Jiitis:  a  ftate  of  the  fublimefl  glory 
preceding,  and  a  (late  of  the  deepefl:  humihaiion  follow- 
ing. So,  when  we  advert  to  timt  faying,  "  He  was 
♦*  made  of  the  feed  of  David  according  to  the  fleHi  ;'* 
we.  have  the  idea  of  two  natures  in  our  Divine  Saviour, 
One,  in  refped  of  which,  he  is  David's  oifspring  ;  the 
other,  fuch  as  conftitutes  him  David's  Lord.  One,  the 
exigence  of  which  commenced  at  his  conception  ;  the 
other,  without  beginning  and  unchangeable. — Thefe  two 
paffages,  it  is  evident,  are  perfe<5>Iy  correfpondent.  For 
if  Jefus  exided  before. he  v^as  made  of  the  feed  of  David, 
according  to  the  fiefli;  it  mud  have  been  either  in  the 
form  of  man,  or  in  the  form  of  God.  Not  the  formery 
for  then  he  muft  have  exifted  in  fiefh,  prior  to  his  being 
made  of  the  feed  of  David,  according  to  the  fielh  ;  which 
is  abfurd  and  contrary  to  the  teftimony  of  the  Holy 
Ghofl:.  It  murt,  confequently,  be  the  lutter;  that  i$, 
before  his  incarnation  he  exified  in  the  form  of  God» 
.:;nd  in  that  only. 

This  will  appear  in  a  flronger  light,  if  we  confider 
the  following  paiTage  ;  "  God  was  manifeft  in  the  fiefh." 
Chrilt  exified  before  he  was  in  the  fiefli.  For  though 
he  was  made  of  the  feed  of  David,  yet  not  abfolutely, 
but  "  according  to  the  fleOi."  Chrift  was  Goi)  ;  for 
God  was  manifeft  in  that  flefh  wliich  was  made  of  the 
.feed  of  David. — By  comparing  this  and  the  two  pre- 
ceding palfages  together,  it  appears,  That  Jefus  Chrift 
cxiRed  in  the  form  of  God,  that  he  was  God  ;  and 
might,  confequently,  be  confidered  as  equal  with  the 
Father  before  that  flcfli  which  was  made  of  the  feed  of 
David,  and  in  which  God  was  manifefled,  had  a  being. 

Once  more  :  He  who  is  the  true  and  faithful  Witnefs 
afTerts,  concerning  himfelf;  "  I  came  forth  from  the 
*'  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world  ;  again,  I  leave 
**  the  world  and  go  to  the  Father."  Before  our  Lord 
came  into  the  world,  he  was  not  made  of  the  {ted  q£ 
JDavid  ;  was  not  flefh,  nor  manifelted  in  the  fiefli  ;  nor 
was  he  in  the  form.of.afervaiit.    No  ^  cQufideredJAJjis 


SECT.  m.  153  CHAP.  Vllî, 

firfl  flate,  he  was  the  Son,  the  onl^'  Son.  of  the  Father; 
that  Divine  Perfon  wlio,  exiting  in  the  form  of  God, 
•and  being  God,  was  to  be  manifelted  in  the  fiefh  ;  was 
to  be  the  wonderful  I  mm  an  u  el. 


CHAPTER     VI IL 

The  f^me  truth  ccnfirn^ed  and  il'.iiftrated,  from  Jr.hn  i.  i — 14. 
The  Sociniaa  interpretation  of  this  paiTaee  conûdcred  an4 
czpofed. 

J  HE  beginninrr  of  the  Gofpel  according  t© 
the  evangeHft  John,  would  be  quite  unintelHgible,  were 
we  to  deny  the  pre-cxiflence  and  eternal  Divinity  of 
Jefus  Chrilt.  The  following  expreflions,  for  inftance  ; 
**  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word — The  Word  was 
**  with  God — The  Word  was  God — All  things  were 
"**  made  by  him — The  Word  was  made  flefh — Thç 
^*  world  was  made  by  him'' — Thefe  expreflîons,  T  fay, 
taken  in  any  other  view,  are  no  better,  £re  no  other, 
than  incomprchenfible  nonfenfc  :  and  men,  who  are  not 
obliged  to  uriderfland  thatv/hich  is  in  itfelf  unintelligibie, 
cannot  be  culpable  for  not  difcovering  a  fenfe  in  them, 
-which  is  contrary  to  the  natural  fignification  of  the  terms, 
•'  In  tiie  beginning  was  "the  Word."  Our  expofitioa 
has  nothing  obfcure,  nothing  perplexed  in  it;  but  that, 
of  our  opponents  is  far-fetched  and  jejune,  is  forced  and 
unnatural.  They  infift  upon  it,  that  by  **  the  beginning," 
the  commencement  of  the  gofpel-difpenfation  is  intended. 
But  fo  to  interpret  the  phrafe,  is  to  retrain  a  general 
expreflion  to  a  particular  and  uncommon  fenfe,  without 
the  lead  warrant  from  the  circumflances  and  fcope  o( 
the  place,  and  is  nothing  (liort  of  offering  violence  tfc 
•tJîe  text.     Itvfaanot  be  fuppofed,  with  theleall  fhaivw 


SECT.  III.  154  CHAP.  VIII, 

of  reafon,  that  a  particular  beginning  is  meant,  becaufc 
nothing  precedes  it,  nothing  follows  it,  fo  to  determine 
the  fenfe  ;  or  which  gives  the  lead  intimation  that  the 
exprellion  ought  to  be  underflood  in  a  fignification 
different  from  that  which  it  ufaally  has.  For  thefe  words 
begin  the  gofpsl,  and  are  repeated  by  the  evangelift  after- 
wards, without  giving  any  notice  of  their  being  ufcd  in 
a  particular  fenfe.  To  imagine  that  a  mental  refervation 
may  determine  general  expreiTions  to  a  particular  mean- 
ing, is  a  great  miftake.  Any  one,  writing  the  hirtory 
of  Auguftus,  v/ould  be  very  impertinent  if  he  (hould  fay; 

*  In  the  beginning  was  AuguRus  ;'  meaning,  that  he 
lived  from  the  time  of  Julius  Cefar.  Or,  if  a  man  were 
to  write  the  hiftory  of  Mcfes,  and  the  furprifing  things 
which  the  God  of  Ifrael  wrought  by  his  niiniflry,  and 
ihouW  introduce  the  wonderful  narrative  thus  ;  *  In  the 

*  beginning  was  Mofes  ;'  meaning,  he  was  from  the  time 
that  God  began  to  deliver  the  feed  of  Jacob  from 
Egyptian  bondage.  For  thefe  mental  explanations  would 
not  prevent  the  language  from  being  contrary  to  good 
fènfe,    becaufe  it  would  be  unintelligible. 

If  theevangelifl'snKaning  had  been  what  they  fuppofe^ 
le  might  h?/;t  explained  himfelf  by  laying,  '  jeUis  Chrifl: 

*  lived  from  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel.'  Yet  even 
then  his  exprelnons  v/ovJd  not  have  been  f:te  from  obfcu- 
rity:  becaufe  we  Ihould  have  been  at  a  lofs  to  know,  from 
vhat  period,  or  from  what  event,  this  begh:n'mg  of  the 
gofpel  was  to  be  dated.  For  if  you  underfianil  the  firfi 
glad  tidings  of  the  great  falvaticn,  which  was  to  be 
accomplilhed  by  Jefus  Chrifl:,  it  is  evident,  on  the 
principles  of  cur  opponents,  that  He  did  not  then  exift  ; 
the  prophets  having  publiihed  the  fulvation  of  God  long 
before  the  Meffiah  s  conception.  If,  by  this  beginning, 
you  underftand  the  time  when  the  prophetic  oracles 
began  to  be  fulfilled  ;  then,  I  demand,  why  it  is  not 
dated  from  the  time  of  Gabriel's  appearancetoZacharias, 
or  to  Mary  ?  Or  from  the  time  that  the  father  of  John 
the  Baptilt,  being  ^Upd  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  defcriUd 


SECT.  ni.  155  CHAP.  viir. 

the  honourable  and  important  work  of  his  new-born  fon^ 
and  foretold  the  immediate  appearance  of  Chrifl:  ?  Or 
from  the  day  that  Simeon  ur.tered  his  comprehenfive 
prophecy,  with  the  infant  Saviour  in  his  arms? 

To  that  remarkable  charader,  the  World,  our 
adverfaries  give  fcveral  figniiications  ;  u-hich  appear  to 
be  invented  only  out  of  ncccllity  to  defend  their  caufe. 

*  It  includes,  fay  they,  a  metaphor,  or  a  metonymy.' — 
Bat  if  they  dealt  ingenuoufly,  they  would  ftx  either  upon 
the  one,  or  the  other  ;  for  one  figure  would  be  fufficicnt 
to  anfwer  the  purpofe.  But  what  would  fuffice,  irv 
itfelf,  does  not  fatisfy  our  opponents  ;  and  the  millruft 
they  have  of  the  one,  makes  them  have  recourfe  to  the 
other.  For,  we  may  venture  to  fay,  it  is  not  the  fenfs 
of  Scripture  they  give  us,  but  their  own  miftakes,  which 
they  feem  determined  to  defend. 

This  appears  from  their  comment  on  the  following 
claufe  :  '*  The  Word  was  with  God.'*  For  if  it  were 
lawful  to  take  thefe  expreflions  in  a  fignilication  which 
is  not  natural  to  them,  feveral  fenfes  might  be  found 
equally  proper  with  that  which  they  have  palmed  upon 
them.  Would  thefe  terms,  *'  The  Word  was  with 
**  God,"  bear    to    be   interpreted   thus,  *  The  Word 

*  was  known  of  God  only;'  why  might  we  not  infift 
upon  it,    that  their  more  natural  fignification  is,  *  The 

*  Word   was  hid   in    heaven  ;*  or,   *  The  Word  was 

*  beloved  of  God  ;'  or,  *  The  Word  only   knew  the 

*  counfei  of  God  V  Thefe  are  more  probable  fignifica- 
tions  of  the  text,  and  yet  they  fix  upon  this,  *  The 

*  Word  was  known  of  God  only;'  or,  according  to  others, 

*  He  was  appointed  of  God  to  his  office.' 

In  much  the  fame  aukvL-'ard  and  unwarrantable  manner 
they  interpret  t}>e  following  remarkable  and  emphatical 
affertion  ;  "  The  Word  was  God."  Th<t  is,  according 
to  them,  *  Every  thing  in    jefus  was  Divine  j  fo  that 

*  the  minidry  of  the  prophets,  compared  with  hi?,  was 

*  human.' — Had  they  been  fatisfied  v/ith  this  interpre- 
tation j  had  they  not  been  cenfcious  of  its  futility,  they 


SECT.  III.  IS^  CHAP.  \lil, 

would  not  have  added  ;  *  Jefus  is  cailed  God,  bccaufc 

*  he  fuftained,  or  was  to  I'ufiain,  the  perfon  of  God.* 
Nor  can  they  entirely  acqulefce  in  this  ;  they,  therefore, 
l^roceed  and  aflert,  *  That  Chrift   was  appointed  to  a 

*  fupreine  glory  and  power  ;   and  becaufe  he  could  not 

*  fail  of  enjoying  this  power  and  glory,  he  is  called 

*  God.' — But  what  ambiguity  is  this,  to  give  fuch 
different  explanations  of  the  fame  expreff.ons  !  Or,  how 
great  is  that  obfcurity,  which,  in  a  fingle  word,  conceals 
fo  many  things,  and  renders  them  fo  very  difficult  to  be 
unfolded  I 

"  All  things  were  mace  by  Him — The  world  was 
*'  made  by  Him."  Thefe  two  claufes  are  parallel  ;  yet 
they  £nd  out  away  to  render  them  very  different,  yïll 
ih'mgî,  is  exprefTed  by  the  nvorld — <zvere  made,  by  the 
^•crU  'was  made.  They,  however,  have  found  out  tlu: 
fecret  to  fet  thefe  expreffions  at  a  prodigious  diflance  one 
from  another  :  underfianding  by  all  ihiitigs^  all  th^t 
pertain  to  the  gofpel  ;  and  by  the  ivorldy  the  world  to 
come,  heaven,  or  the  fociety  of  men  :  by,  all  things  ivere 
made,  all  things  were  formed,  or  produced  ;  and  by  the 
'world  cvas  made,  the  world  was  renewed.  It  is  plaiq, 
from  this  different  way  of  explaining  fynonymous  pafîàge?, 
that  their  main  defign  is  to  fupport  their  own  fentiments  ; 
how  perplexed  foever  they  may  render  the  facred  text. 

Of  this  we  have  a  further  proof  by  their  afTerting, 
that  the  term  ivorld  is  ufed  in  three  different  and  remote 
fenfes,  in  the  fame  verfe  :  that  is,  for  the  fociety  of  men  ; 
for  heaven  ;  and  for  carnal  or  profane  men.  But  if 
we  mufl  take  one  term  in  three  dilTerent  fenfes,  in  the 
fame  place  ;  who,  wiihcut  a  fpirit  of  divir.ation,  can  be 
certain  ihathe  underf^and;:  any  part  of  the  facred  Records; 
or  that,  in  any  inflance,  he  has  difcovered  the  meaning 
cf  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  So  to  ireat  the  infpired  writings 
33,  not  to  interpret,  but  to  accomodate  ihcm  to  cur  owp 
erroneous  opinions. 

But  befides  that  variety  of  interpretations,  which 
they  give  to  the  fame  expreUions,  they  attribute  to  the 


5£CT.  III.  1^7  CHAP.  Vlll, 

evangelifl  different  ends;  ^o  very  different  as  to  hz 
fometimes  diredly  oppofite  one  to  another.  Nor  c:.a 
this  proceed  from  a  want  of  difcernment;  for  we  reaci'- 
scknowledge,  that  we  have  to  do  with  writers  of  great 
ingenuity  ;  but  from  that  embarraffment  in  which  the 
neceifity  of  defending  their  caufe  involves  them,  there 
being  fo  many  exprefs  paffages  of  Scripture  diredly 
contrary  to  their  avowed  fentimcnts. 

If  we  beHeve  them,  *  the  delign  of  the  KoJy  Spirit, 

*  in  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel  according  to  John,  is 

*  to  obviate  an  objection  which  might  be  n^ade  to  the 

*  dignity  of  Jefus  ChriH,  from  the  precedence  wiiich 

*  John  the  Baptifl  had»  in  refpe^  of  time.'  But  when 
tr;cy  are  urged  to  fhew,  why  Chrid  is  here  called  God, 
there  being  no  neceiTity  that  he  Hiould  bear  that  fublimc 
liame  to  dKHnguifli  him  from  the  fon  of  Zach^rias  ;  for 
every  perplexity  they  have  a  new  evafion.  They  pretend, 
'  that  the   evangeliit,    thinking   no  more  of  John   the 

*  Baptlft,  intends  to  diftinguifli  Jefus  by  the  name,  Cod, 

*  from  all  the  ancient  prophets  ;  becaufe  their  miniflry, 

*  compared  with  his,  was  human.'  Here  are  fcvcirtl 
dedgns  afcribed  to  the  infpired  writer,  let  us  nov/ 
examine  them. 

The  evangelifl  is  afraid  we  Hionld,  *  prefer  John  the 

*  fervant,   to   Chrift    the   mafler,    becaufe   the    Baptift 

*  came  before  him.'  For  the  f:me  reafon  he  n}ight 
have  been  apprehenfive,  that  we  ihould  prefer  Mofcs 
and  the  prophets  to  Him  of  whom  they  fpake,  becaufe 
they  lived  before  him.  But,  admitting  there  was  any 
danger  of  looking  upon  the  Baptilt  as  the  Melîihh,  when 
he  began  to  preach  the  gofpel  ;  yet  the  danger  was  en- 
tirely over,  fo  foon  as  John  was  beheaded  and  Jefas  was 
rifcn  from  the  dead. — Suppofing.  however,  the  evangelill 
i.id  apprehend  that  fome  would  be  fo  fimp'e  as  to  prefer 
J'.hn  to  Chriif,  on  account  of  his  coming  before  him, 
how  does  he  obviate  this  rnidake  ?  He  is  entirely  fdenc 
when  he  (hould  fpeak,  and  he  fpenks  a  hen  hi  O.culd 
hold  his  tongue.     The  former:  For  he  does  not  fay, 

0 


flCT.  III.  Ï53  CHAP.  virt. 

The  f^rvanis  go  before  their  Mader  :  The  prophets 
were  before  tlic  coming  of  the  Mefiiah,  though  they 
were  Icfi  than  He  ;  and,  therefore,  we  mu(l  not 
wonder  that  the  venerable  BaptKt  appeared  before  Jefus 
Chrid,  being  commiilioned  to  prepare  his  way  and  to 
make  his  paths  (Iraight.  The  latter  :  For  he  fays,  Jefus 
was  from  the  beginning  of  John's  miniltry  ;  which 
does  not  remove  the  obje^fiion  at  all.  For  though  He 
was  from  that  time,  as  v/e!l  as  John  ;  yet  the  Baptid 
exercifed  the  funclicns  of  his  miniliry,  while  Jefus  did 
r.otlnng;  which  is  the  very  difficulty  the  evangeliil  fliould 
have  prevented. 

But  though  we  cannot  find,  in  the  interpretation  of 
our  opponents,  fuch  deHgns  as  are  worthy  of  the  Holy 
Soirit  J  yet  we  meet  with  fuch  diforder  and  confufion 
in  it,  as  can  only  agree  to  a  fpirit  who  intended,  either 
to  lead  us  into  error,  or  to  fpeak  fo  as  not  to  be 
linderftood.  For,  by  ihefe  words,  *'  In  the  beginning," 
they  maintain  that  the  commencement  of  the  Baptilt's 
miniilry  is  intended  :  even  though  it  is  manifeft,  that  the 
evangeliil  has  not  only  not  yet  menùoued  John,  but  does 
not  fpeak  of  him  till  he  has  concluded  his  fublime 
encomium  on  the  Divine  Word  ;  and  then  does  it  in 
fuch  a  manner  as  plainly  to  fliew,  that  he  means  to 
fpeak  of  him  for  the  Jlrjl  time,  faying,  "  There  was  a 
**  man  fent  from  God,  whofe  name  was  John.'*-— 
Further  :  în  that  beginning  which  is  here  intended, 
*»  the  Word  was — was  with  God — and  v/as  God.'* 
But  nota  tittle  of  ihis  agrees  to  Jefus  Chrift,  according 
10  tlieir  hypothefis,  and  their  interpretation  of  the  text. 
He  was  not  then  the  Word;  for  he  had  not,  at  that 
time,  pubiifned  the  counfel  of  God.  He  was  not  iviih 
God;  at  leafl,  not  in  a  proper  fenfe  ;  for,  according 
to  them,  he  was  not  tranfiated  into  heaven  till  after  his 
baptifm.  Nor  was  he  God;  for  he  was  not  then  inverted 
with  his  offices,  in  the  execution  of  ^^hich  he  rcprefents 
God,  and  bears  his  naaie. 


££CT.   111.  159  CKAP.  Vlll. 

It  would  be  bat  a  fmall  matter  for  the  words  of  the 
evangelilt  to  want  order^  if  they  were  not  deftiiute  of 
truth  ;  but,  admitting  the  inicrpretation  of  our  advci- 
faries,  we  can  hardly  doubt  of  their  faifehood.  Certain 
it  is,  however,  that*  we  may  fubiliiutc  contradidory 
proportions  in  the  place  of  thofe  which  the  facrcd 
writer  hus  ufed,  which  will  appear  much  more  intel- 
ligible, and  much  more  agreeable,  in  their  proper 
(ignihcation,  to  truth  and  favft.  —  For  inflance  :  Jefus 
Chrifl  was  not  in  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel.  He  was 
not  the  Word  from  the  beginning.  He  was  not  then 
with  God.  He  was  not  God.  All  things,  even  all 
tliat  rcfpedl  the  ceconomy  of  the  gofpel,  were  not  made 
by  him  ;  for  feveral  of  them  were  made  witliout  him, 
before  him,  and  after  him.  The  world  was  not  made 
by  him.  The  Word  was  not  made  fltih  ;  but  fieili  was 
made  the  Word.  He  is  the  light,  but  not  that  light 
which  illuminates  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world. 

*  Jefus  Chrifl  was  not  in  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel.* 
This  propofition,  on  their  hypothecs,  is  undoubtedly 
true  :  the  embafiy  of  the  angel  to  Zacharias,  giving  the 
true  beginning  to  this  gofpel  ;  which  was  aftei  wards 
continued  by  fending  another  celertial  envoy  to  the 
fliepherds  of  Bethlehem,  by  the  preaching  of  John  the 
Baptiii,  and  by  that  of  Jefus  and  his  apoltlcs. — *  Jefus 

*  was  noty  in  this  beginning,  the  IVord,'  neither  by  a 
metaphor,  nor  by  a  metonymy.  Not  by  a  mctafhor: 
For   it   could   not   then    be  faid,  *  As  a  man's  word 

*  difcovers  his  thoughts,  fo  Jefus  manifefls  the  thoughts 

*  and  counfel  of  God.'  Not  by  a  metonymy:  For  he 
could  not  borrov/  that  name  from  words  which  he  had 
not  then  fpoken,  nor  caufed  to  be  publifncd. — '  He  was 

*  not  God,*  in  whatever  fenfe  that  auguft  name  be  under- 
ftood.     He  could  be  fo  called  *  becaufe  his  miniPiry  W2s 

*  Divine,'  as  oppofed  to  that  of  the  prophets  ;  for  he 
did  not  then  exercife  his  minidry.      Nor   ♦  becaufe  he 

*  fuftained  the  perfon  of  God  ;'  for  he  did  not  then 
;reprcfent  God  in   any  wife.      Nor   *  becaufe   he  was 

O  2 


SJICT.  III.  lOO  CHAP.   viir. 

*  appointed  to  the  enjoyment  of  divine  power  and  glory.* 
For  the  ordinary  ftyle  of  Scripture  will  not  admit  of  it. 
It  is  no  where  faid,  for  inltance,  That  Saul  was  an 
apcflle,  a  light  of  the  chiirch,  or  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel,  when  he  was  full  of 
perfecuting  rage  againfl  the  difcipies  of  Chrift,  becaufe 
he  was  then  appointed  to  the  apoiUclhip.  Nor,  that 
Mofes  was  a  mediator  be:vveen  God  and  the' Ifraelites, 
in  the  beginning;  that  is,  from  the  time  that  he  fed  the 
cattle  of  Jeihro.  Nor,  that  the  fons  of  Zebedee  were 
the  fons  of  thunder,  from  the  time  they  did  not  nothing 
but  iiPiï  wâth  their  father. 

Yet,  if  the  interpretation  of  our  opponents  were  jufl, 
the  high  encomium  here  given  of  Jefus  Chriit  would  b; 
in  various  particulars,  applicable  to  Mofes.  As  for 
example  :  **  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word."  Mufcs 
v.as  from  the  beginning  that  God  manifelled  his  defigû 
of  bringing  the  poflerity  of  Abraham  out  of  the  landtf 
r.gypt.  And  he  may  be  called  "  the  Word,"  both  by 
n.  metaphor,  and  by  a  metonymy.  By  a  metaphor  ; 
becaufe  as  a  word  ferves  toexprefs  the  thoughts  of  a  man, 
I'o  lie  was  the  chofen  inflrum.ent  of  making  known  the 
counfcl  of  God.  By  a  metonymy,  becaufe  he  was  the 
niiniflcr  of  the  word  ;  he  brought  it  from  the  mount, 
CGrnnùtted  it  to  writing,  and  made  it  known  to  the 
Lévites,  who  were  appointed  to  inltrudt  the  people  ; 
HuJ  becaufe  he  may  bear  the  name  of  that  word,  of 
wlilch  he  was  the  chief  publiilier. — Mofes  was  "  with 
*'  God,"  from  the  beginning.  For,  though  he  was 
unknown  to  men  and  defpifed  by  them,  he  was  known 
of  God,  and  honoured  with  a  Divine  revelation. — He 
**  was  God  ;'*  fur  he  was  appointed  to  reprelent  God, 
according  to  .thofe  words,  which  arc  fo  ofien  quoted 
by  our  adverfaries  :  "  Thou  (halt  be  to  him  indead  of 
**  God."  Yes,  he  was  God  in  all  thofe  three  fenfes, 
v.hi^h  are  mentioned  by  our  oppofers.  His  miniflry 
was  heavenly  and  divine,  in  comparifon  of  theirs  who 
went  before  him.     For  thers  was  no  prophet  raifed  up 


•SECT.  III.  l6l  CHAP.  viir.c 

in  Ifrael  equal  to  him,  who  beheld  God  face  to  ficc,  and 
talked  with  him  as  a  man  talketh  to  his  friend.  He 
may  alfo  be  fo  called,  becaufe,  as  jult  obfcrved,  he 
veprefented  God,  was  invcltsd  with  his  power,  was  his 
a:-nbaflador,  and  fpake  to  Pharaoh  on  his  behalf.  Again  : 
He  was  God,  becaufe  he  was  appcinied  to  a  glory  and 
to  the  exeràfc  of  a  po'-jjer  truly  divine  :  for  he  was  to 
perform  molt  altonilhing  miracles  in  all  the  parts  cf 
nature. — *'  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;"  that  is,  all 
things  relating  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Ifraelites,  and 
the  eilablifhment  of  the  law. 

This  conformity  will  apper.r  the  greater,  if  it  be  con- 
fidered,  that  as  Jefus  Chrill,  on  the  principles  of  ojr 
opponents,  r.fied  only  by  the  power  of  his  Father,  in 
working  miracles;  fo  Mofcs,  in  the  performance  of  his 
wonderful  works,  adcd  only  by  the  power  of  God. 
And  as  all  the  miracles,  which  fignalized  the  gofpel, 
were  not  wrought  hy  the  minidry  of  Chriîl  ;  for  he 
neither  fenc  the  angels  v;iih  the  tidings  ol  his  birth,  nor 
kindled  the  flar  which  appeared  to  the  wife  men  :  fo  all 
the  aftoniihing  works,  attending  the  deliverance  of  the 
chofen  tribes,  were  not  performed  by  the  minilby  of 
Mofes,  but  the  far  greater  number  of  th°m  certainly 
were.  Now,  fo  many,  (b  great,  and  amazingly  diverfiued 
miracles  being  performed  by  his  miniflry,  may  it  not  be 
faid  ;  *'  Without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
*<  made  ?" — Once  more  :  This  Old  Tellament  Word 
<•  was  made  ficfn  ;"  that  is,  he  was  flefh.  For  Mofes 
was  a  man,  though  lie  a<5ted  as  God.  There  can  be 
little  doubt,  therefore,  but  this  expreilion  belongs  to  him, 
as  well  as  the  reft. 

Here  our  adverfaries  are  greatly  embarrafTcd.  For 
if  they  allow,  that  fuch  language  might  be  ufed  con- 
cerning Mofes,  they  mult  confcfs,  that  he  was  qualified 
to  fill  the  highelt  encomium  that  is  given  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  Jefus  Chriil;  it  being  certain,  that  the  Scripture 
never  fpeaks  more  honourably  of  him,  than  in  the 
beginning  of  the  gofpel  according  to  John.     i3ut  if  thtvy 


SLCT.  III.  162  CHAT.   IX. 

den}'  tliat  fuch  langnr.ge  is  applicable  to  Mofes,  they 
muii  nccefTariiy  own,  that  the  words  of  the  evangelift 
contain  a  much  higher  and  riobler  fenfe,  than  that 
which  they  alTix  to  them. 


CHAPTER     IX, 


OTILL  further  to  evince  the  truth  for  which 
W'Ç.  jilead,  from  this  important  paragraph,  I  fliall  now 
proceed  to  Hiew,  That  there  is  not  one  of  thofe  remark- 
able cxpreOlons,  which  we  have  under  confideraticn, 
that  will  adnut  the  fenfe  affixed  to  it  by  our  opponents. 

The  phrafe,  **  the  beginning,*'  or.,  •'  in  thebcginning," 
when  uled  fo  generally,  always  fignifies  the  beginning 
of  the  world.  For  inllance  ;  **  In  the  beginning  God 
•'  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth — The  Lord  poffefTed 
**  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before  his  works  of 
**  old — Thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  haft  laid  the 
'*  foundation  of  the  earth — He  which  made  man  at  the 
•*  beginning — From  the  beginning  it  was  not  fo — Yc 
**  knov/  Him  that  is  from  the  beginning — The  devil 
*'■  finneth  from  the  beginning'* — Thefe,  I  fay,  and 
iimilar  cxpreflions,  mu(t  he  undcrflood,  either  abfolutely 
of  the  beginning  of  all  things  ;  or,  at  leafl:,  with  a 
particular  reference  to  that  beginning.  Had  they  a 
different  meaning,  they  would  be  unintelligible  ;  this 
being  the  obvious  and  natural  fignification  of  the  terms. 

**  The  World,"  underftood  fimply  of  one  who 
reveals  the  counfels  of  God,  is  v.'ithout  any  example  in 
Scripture.  Neither  the  Old,  nor  the  New  Tediament, 
is  acquainted  with  it.  The  prophets  made  known  the 
4'cunfel  cf  God  )  ^slofcs,  more  fully  than  R»y  of  the 


SECT.  III.  163  CHAP.   IX* 

prophets  ;  and  the  apoflles,  more  clearly  and  delightfully 
than  Mofes  ;  yet  neither  Mofes,  nor  prophet,  nor  apoitle, 
is  ever  called  the  Word  — The  only  exprefiion  our 
adverfaries  can  produce,  which  bears  any  TeftrnMancc  to 
this,  is  that  of  Ifaiah  ;  who,  fj)eaking  of  John  tht: 
BaptiO:,  fays  ;  "  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the 
*'  wilderneis."  But  to  fuppofe  that  the  Mcfllah*5 
harbir.ger  is  here  called  ihe  voice  of  Jefas  C brill,  is  ah 
egregious  niidake.  The  facred  oracle  iays  no  fuch 
thing,  nor  fuggefts  any  fuch  idea.  In  the  interpietation 
of  this  text,  '•  The  voice  of  hitn  that  crieth  in  the  uildef- 
*'  nefs,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord  ;"  the  verb  //, 
or  is  beards  mult  be  fupplied,  the  fenfe  of  the  text 
evidently  requiring  it.  He  that /Vin  the  'Aildernefs,  he 
that  preaches  in  the  wildcrrnefs,  and  he  that  prepares  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  by  exhortations  to  repentance,  is  John 
the  BaptKL  The  voice  mentioned  in  the  oracle,  is  the 
voice  of  him  that  crieth,  or  preacheth  in  the  wildernefs, 
and  fays  ;  *'  Make  (traigtit  in  the  dcfart  a  high-way  for 
«*  our  God."  It  murt,  therefore,  te  the  voice  of  John 
the  Baptift.  This  voice,  then,  mull  be  underOood,  either 
of  the  preaching,  or  of  Û\q  ptrfon  of  John  the  Baptilt.  If 
\hc  farmery  the  text  is  impei  tinently  cited  by  our  oppofcrs. 
If  the  latter,  we  attribute  nonfenfe  and  abfurdity  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  j  for  the  text  Vvill  read  thus  :   *  The  perfon 

*  of  John,  is,  Prepare  ye  ihe  'way  of  the  Lord,* 

The  following  exprelTions,  *'  He  was  with  God/* 
as  und^rdood  by  the  Socinians.  are  entirely  v/ithout 
example.  Where  (hall  we  find  an  inHance  of  thefe, 
or   fimilar   terms,   Hgnifying,   *  He  was  known  of  God 

*  only  ?'  They,  indeed,  refer  us  to  thofe  words,  *'  The 
*'  Life  v/as  with  the  Father  ;'*  fuppofing  them  to  mean, 
that  it  was  known  of  the  Father.  But  how  jejune  the 
fenfe,  how  abfurd  the  interpretation  ?  For  is  it  credible 
that  the  apofile  (hould  fay  nothing  more  of  that  Life, 
than  might  be  faid  of  death  and  the  devil,  of  fin  and 
damnation  ?  for  all  thefe  were  known  of  God  frotn 
eternity.    Befides,  there  is  a  matsrial  difference  betwsoî 


SECT.  III.  Î64  CHAP.  IX. 

fpeaking  thus  of  a  quaUty,  and  ufing  the  fame  language 
OÏ  -A  l>frfon.      If  we  fliould  fay,  for  inltance,   *  The  Liw 

*  was  with  God  ;'  and,  '  Mofes  was  with  God  ;'  the 
two  propofitions  mu(l  be  underltood  in  a  very  different 
fenfe. 

"  The  Word  was  God,'*  is,  if  you  will  beiieve  our 
adverfaries,  another  figurative  phrafe  ;  but  you  will  not 
be  able  to  find  an  example  of  it  in  Scripture.  They 
pretend,  thatjefas  is  called  God,  becaufe  he  is  Jehovah's 
reprefentative.  But  though  various  eminent  perfons  have, 
lx\  fome  rerpe(n:s,  reprefented  the  eternal  Sovereign  ;  yet 
we  do  not  find  that  either  of  them  was  ever  called  God, 
abfoluiely  j  or  without  fome  intimation,  that  he  was  fo 
denominated  only  in  a  figurative  fenfe.  It  is,  indeed, 
iaid,  *'  Ye  are  Godc,"  in  the  plural  ;  but  it  was  never 
.faid  of  any  particular  perfon,  *  He  was  God.^ — The.y 
will  have  it  that  our  gracious  Redeemer  is  called  God^ 
becaufe  his  miniftry  was  entirely  divine.  But  fo  was 
that  of  the  apoftles.  They  revealed  a  bleifed  immor- 
tality, and  VvTOught  very  wonderful  works,  as  well  as 
their  Lord  ;  fo  that,  on  this  principle,  they  might  haye 
•claimed  the  glory  of  that  Divine  charafler  as  well  as  he. 
Yet  we  do  not  read  that  any  of  the  apollles  were  fo 
called  ;  but  we  find,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  detefted 
the  condu(5t  of  the  people  at  Lyfira,  who  gave  them 
that  name. — *  But  there  is  a  very  material  difference 

*  between  Jefus  and  his  apofiles.  He  was  the  Mafler, 
'  they  were  the  fcrvants.'  True:  but  though  the  apolHes 
v/ere  fervants,  in  ref[>e^  of  Chri(l  ;  yet  Chrilt,  our 
adverfaries  muft  allow,  is  equally  a  fervant,  in  regard 
to  God.  If,  then,  an  apoflle  could  nut  lawfully  call 
himfelf  Lord,  out  of  reverence  for  Jefus  Chriff  that 
.name  being  confecrated  to  him  ;  neither  could  JefiS 
aiTume  the  name.  God,  becaufe  that  facred  a|.pel]ation 
Jiad  been  long  appropriated  to  the  Supreme  Being 

Nor  can  they,  by  any  example,  jufiify  that  reitriclT^ion 
with  which  they  underftand  the  following  woids  ;  "  All 
»^*, things  were  made  by  him,  and  v/iihouthim  was  not. 


SECT.  îi:.  165  CHAT.  IX, 

**  any  thing  made  that  was  mads."  For  the  Cicrcl 
Writer  appears  to  have  intended,  to  exprel's  himfelf  as 
generally  as  he  polllbly  could.  He,  therefore,  is  not 
latisfied  with  faying,  "  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;" 
bat  he  repeats  the  important  truth,  in  a  flill  more  forcible 
manner,  by  adding,  "  Without  him  was  not  any  thing 
*'  made  that  was  made.'* — '  The  matter  in  hand,  Çi/ 
•  they,  limits  the  exprelTions.'  But  this  afTcrtion  is 
groundlefs.  Both  the  foregoing  and  the  following  words 
fnggeft  the  contrary  ;  unlefs  we  renounce  the  natural 
impreffion  of  the  terms.  In  the  preceding  context  he 
fays,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  ;"  which  is  a 
general  way  of  fpcaking,  and  leads  us  to  confider  ths 
words,  "  All  things  were  made,"  in  a  fenfe  equally 
general.  In  a  fubfequent  veifc  he  fays,  "  The  worLi 
*'  was  made  by  him  ;"  where  he  again  fpeaks  in  a  general 
Way,  and  teaches  us  to  conclude,  that  "  all  things," 
are  to  be  underllood  of  all  things  entirely  ;  all,  without 
exception. 

Their  interpretation  of  this  claufe,  "  The  world  wai 
"  made  by  him,"  is  equally  void  of  truth.  For  whether, 
by  tlie  term  ivorld.  they  underlland  the  world  to  come  ; 
or  whether  they  fuppofe  the  meaning  to  be,  that  the 
world  was  made  ours  by  Jefas  Chrilt  ;  in  either  cafii 
they  are  utterly  at  a  lofs  for  a  finiilar  inllance  in  the 
Holy  Scripture.  They,  indeed,  produce  parages  to 
fliew  that  the  tuorUf  fomeiimes  figniiies  /he  ivorld  tn 
come;  but  the  examples  alleged  are  not  to  the  purpofe. 
They  pretend  that  in  this  paffage,  *'  When  he  bringeth 
*'  his  Firft-begotten  into  the  world,"  that  the  term 
'u.'orlJ  fignifies  eternal  hfe.  But  the  original  phrafc 
ought  not  to  be  rendered,  the  luorlJ ;  but  t/je  earth,  or  the 
habitable  part  of  the  world  ;  for  it  is  t/iv  ImovfjLiry.v,  not 
rlï  yjjjuov.  Befides,  by  what  arguments  will  they 
prove  that  this  habitable  earth,  mc;ins  heaven,  or  a  ftate 
of  blifs  to  come  ? — Nor  is  that  other  pafTage,  adduced 
by  then**  j  where  mention  is  made  of  "  the  world  to 

*  H;b.  ii.  Ç. 


SECT.  lîî.  166  CHAP,  IX. 

*'  come,"  fuilîcient  for  their  purpofe.  For,  whatever  be 
tlie  meaning  of  it,  there  is  a  manifeft  difference  between 
thofe  exprefiîons,  and  this  generd  phrafe,  the  world  ; 
the  latter  being  in  queftion,  and  not  the  former.  The 
two  phr?.fes  are  far  from  being  equivalent.  Nothing 
would  be  more  abfurd  than  to  fuppofe,  that  the  ivorld^ 
fignifies  the  nvorld  to  come^  wherever  the  exprcfiions  are 
ufed,  becaufe  the  latter  phrafe  is  once  or  twice  contained 
ÎD  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews.— Neither  is  the  following 
pafTage  any  more  to  their  purpofe.  *'  When  he  cometh 
•*  into  the  world  he  faith,  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou 
*♦  wouldelt  not."  For  the  ivorld^  here  intended,  mufl 
necefllvrily  be  underflood  of  that  which  we  inhabit,  and 
not  of  the  heavenly  (late.  Nay,  the  term  wcr/J  is  fo 
far  from  being  generally  ufed  for  heaven^  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  two  expreffions  are  frequently  oppofed. 
To  this  purpofe  are  the  words  of  our  Lord  i  "  I  came 
*'  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world  ; 
**  again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father." 
Butin  what  fenfe  was  this  world  made  by  Jcfus  Chrifl  ? 

*  The  world,  that  is,  the  world  to  come,  was  made  by 

*  him,  becaufe,  through  him  it  becomes  ourj ;  or,  by  hira 

*  we  have  an  hope  to  cbtain  it,  and  (hall  certainly,  in  the 
■*  end,  enjoy  it.'  But  v.'hat  apon:le,  what  prophet,  what 
vritsr  of  common  fenfe  and  common  hone(ty,  ever 
exprefled  himfelf  in  fuch  an  aukward,  unintelligible  and 
ridiculous  manner,  as  that  in  which  the  evangeli(t  fpeaks, 
according  to  this  interpretation  ? — If  you  infift  upon  it, 
that  the  fenfe  which  they  afnx  to  tlie  term  "dorldy  is 
forced  and  unnatural,  and  that  it  fjgnifies  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  with  all  their  inhabitants  ;  then  they 
endeavour  to  perfuade  you,  that  '  the  word  madcy  here 

*  fignifies  reneivcd.'  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  the 
pa(fage  is,  *  The  world  was  rene^ived  by  Jefus  CHrifL' 
To  give  this  interpretation  an  air  of  probability,  they 
produce  various  paffages  of  Scripture  ;  bat  the  only  one 
that  appears  at  all  to  the  purpofe,  is  the  following^: 
'**  We  are  his  vvorkmand'.ip,  created  in  Chrid  Jefus  uat0 


g£CT.  III.  Î'J/  CMAr.   ÎX, 

"  good  works."  Here,  it  is  manifeft,  that  tlie  term  r/r- 
ated  is  limited  to  a  particular  fenfe,  and  Ggnifics  rcneiu- 
td;  as  aj)pcars  from  the  following  claufe,  *'  unto  good 
*'  works."  Had  the  evangeliil  faid,  The  world  was  made, 
or  created  by  him,  in  righteoufnefs,  or  to  good  works, 
or  to  be  a  new  creature  ;  the  words,  k  muft  be  conFelTed, 
wo'uld  have  required  the  fenfe  of  our  adverfaries.  But 
as  he  fays  nothing  like  it,  all  the  rules  of  found  inter- 
pretation require,  that  we  fliould  take  the  expreflions  in 
their  obvious  and  natural  fignification. — If  Paul  in  the 
pafiage  produced,  had  only  fa.id,  "  We  are  created  by 
*'  Jeius  Chrilt  /'  and  if,  notwithrtanding  he  had  meant 
the  fime  as  is  now  exprcficd  ;  he  would  have  ufcd  fuch 
an  obfcure  and  ambiguous  way  of  fpeaking,  that  wc 
fliould  have  hardly  cone  at  his  meaning;  or,  mod 
probably,  have  attributed  a  fenfe  to  his  words  which  he 
did  not  intend.  So  if  John  fays,  '*  The  world  was 
**  made  by  Jefus  Chrilt,"  after  having  told  us,  that 
"  all  things  were  made  by  him,"  and  that  "  without 
**  him  nothing  was  made  that  was  made  ;'*  and  if  he 
fay  it  only  to  inform  u?,  that  our  Lord  introduced  an 
alteration  into  the  world  by  hisgofpel  ;  we  have  reafon 
to  complain  of  great  obfcurity  in  his  language,  and  mud: 
either  confider  his  afTertion  as  groundlefs,  or  embrace  a 
fenfe  of  the  terms  quite  contrary  to  their  natural  fignifi- 
cation. 

Once  more  :  It  was  never  faid  of  any  man  that 
appeared  in  the  world,  *'  He  was  made  flefli  ;"  fuch  a 
way  of  fpeaking  being  abfurd.  Yet,  if  we  believe  our 
opponents,  this  is  the  meaning  of,  *'  The  Word  was 
♦*  made  âefh.'*  That  is,  *  Jefus  a  mere  man,  came 
*  into  the  world.'  A  goodly  way  of  fpeaking  for  an 
infpired  writer  to  ufe  i  But  was  it  ever  faid.  The  king 
was  made  fieih — The  emperor  was  made  ilefh  ?  Was 
it  ever  faid,  by  the  Ho' y  Spirit,  Such  a  prophet,  or  fuch 
an  apofUe,  was  made  flcfn  ? — Nor  does  it  avail  the  caufe 
to  render  the  text,  •'  Ke  was  fie  Hi."     For  fjch  a  v.ay 


FECT.  m.  l68  CHAP.   IX, 

cf  fpeaking  is  not  more  proper,  and  is  equally  unknown 
to  both  human  and  Divine  language. 

It  follows,  then,  that  all  thefe  expreflions  in  the 
beginning  of  John's  evangelical  hiftory,  are  without 
example,  if  undtriiood  according  to  the  Socinian 
comment.  But,  fuppoHng  it  could  be  proved  that  each 
cf  tliem  was  ufcd  in  Scripture,  once  or  twice,  in  the 
fenfc  of  our  advcrfaries  ;  yet  fo  many  fingular  forms  of 
fpeech  united,  would  be  entirely  without  example,  and 
contrary  to  all  rcafon.  For  though  a  fingle  exprefiion, 
when  ufed  in  an  uncommon,  or  even  an  unnatural  fenfe, 
may  pafs,  in  a  croud  of  other  expreiTions  that  are  clear 
and  pertinent,  by  which  it  may  be  anderdood  ;  yet  if 
a  writer  ufe  ten  or  a  dozen  of  them,  in  the  ccmpafs  of 
a  few  periods,  he  will  render  his  language  obfcure  and 
abfurd,  and  himfelf  contemptible. — It  is  unreafonablç 
to  fuppofe,  that  the  general  term,  beginning,  (hould  be 
here  taken,  contrary  to  all  afe,  for  the  commencement 
of  the  gofpel.  But  if  you  iliould  find  an  example  of  its 
being  ulcd  in  the  fenfc  they  atnx  to  it,  among  a  multitude 
of  ir.nances  to  the  contrary;  it  does  not,  it  cannot 
follow  from  thence,  that  it  mufl  be  underlîood  in  fuch 
a  limited  and  particular  figniiication  here  ;  becaufe  all 
the  ci  re  I.:  m  ft  an  ce  s  of  the  dilcourfe  lead  us  to  confider  it 
in  a  general  (enfe,  as  the  moft  natural.  But  when  you 
offer  this  violence  to  that  exprciTion,  you  cannot  do  fo 
■to  eight  or  ten  more  which  immediately  follow,  without 
impeaching  the  wifdom,  or  the  goodnefs,  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  ;  as  if  he  intended,  by  connecîling  fo  many 
expreflions,  which  are  all  to  be  taken  in  a  particular 
fenfe  and  contrary  to  their  natural  ufe,  to  lead  us  into 
error.  Our  oppofers  find  their  account  in  confidering 
each  expreiTion  by  itfelf  ;  becaufe  it  is  pofRble,  by  great 
application,  to  imagine  fome  fenfes  that  are  pretty  near 
thofe  which  they  aifix  to  the  words  of  Scripture.  But 
>^hen  they  are  obliged  to  unite  all  their  defigns  and 
explanations  together,  tiiey  make  an  abfurd  and  ridiculous 
appearan-ce. 


SECT.  lir.  169  CHA?.    IX. 

Nor  would  it  help  their  caufe  to  fugged  a  doubt 
concerning  the  Divine  authcnticiiy  of  the  beginning  of 
John's  evangelical  hiftory.  For,  in  anfwcr  to  fach  aa 
infinuation,  wc  need  only  obferve;  That  the  languagt 
of  this  evangslift  exprefTes  nothing,  relating  to  thu 
perfonal  dignity,  glory,  and  works  of  Jefu?,  but  wh.it 
is  taught  us  by  other  apoftles.  In  the  writings  of  Paul, 
for  inltance,  we  have  the  following  afTcrtions  concerning 
Jefus  Chrilt.  *'  Being  in  the  for.-n  of  God,  he  though: 
"  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God — He  kid  the 
"  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works 
**  of  his  hands — By  him  were  all  things  created,  vifible 
"  and  invifible — All  things  were  created  by  him  and  for 
"  him — God  was  manifell  in  the  f.efh" — wi:h  many 
other  fimihir  paffagcs. 

Equally  unavailing  would  it  be  for  themto  philofophize 
on  the  manner  hoiu  the  writings  of  the  evangelifls  are  the 
•word  of  God.  For  whether  it  be  by  infpiration  of 
fuggeftion,  or  whether  by  way  of  fjperintendency,  or 
by  both  united,  that  God  influenced  the  minds,  and 
tongues,  and  pens  of  thofe  infallible  teachers  ;  yet  it 
cannot  be  fuppofed  that  they  were  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Spiri:,  and  received  miraculous  gifts,  only  to  talk 
as  they  do,  if  Jefus  Chrift  be  a  mere  creature.  For, 
only  admitting  that  they  pofTefled  a  moderate  fhare  of 
common  ft-nle,  and  were  honefl  and  good  m.en,  though 
entirely  deititute  of  extraordinary  gifts  ;  they  could  not 
but  take  particular  care  that  they  gave  no  occaGon  to 
impiety  and  idolatry,  by  afcribing  the  names,  properties, 
and  glories  of  the  true  God  to  a  mere  creature. 

Should  it  be  faid,  *  Thefe  grand  expreflions,  concern- 

•  ing  Jefus    Chrift,  are  no  other  than  the   fl  )urinies  of 

*  rhetoric  and  the  elevated  flights  of  fancy;*  t  anfwer. 
We  may  be  ioon  convinced  of  the  contiary,  by  a  general 
refle^îîion  on  the  charai5Ver  of  thofe  facred  books,  which 
conftitute  the  canon  of  the  Scripture.  Not  a  (ingle 
expreflion  can  be  found  in  any  of  them,  to  the  prejudice 
of  God's  glory.     No  impious  meuphor,  no  hyperbole 

P 


:iGT.  lii.  170  CKAr>.  IX. 

finding  to  blnfulitini)',  nor  any  unbecoming  comparifon 
<..f  nian  with  Gud,  is  there  to  be  found.  The  languaga 
is  humble,  niodefi,  rehgious.  It  is  leally  furprifing  that, 
though  other  authors  can  hardly  write  a  few  pages 
raihout  injuring  the  glory  of  God,  this  long  feries  of 
holy  teachers  difcover,  in  a*l  their  words  and  ideas,  that 
lefped  which  is  due  to  the  Supreme  Being.  I'hrs,  as 
allmu'l  confefs,  is  one  of  thofe  internal  charaders  by 
which  the  Bible  is  known  to  be  the  Book  of  God. 

Nor  can  it  be  objeded,  with  any  greater  appearance 
of  rcufun,  *  That  the  idea  of  the  Wor»,  taken  for  the 

*  Son  of  God,  who  is  God  himfelf,    being  new  and 

*  extraordinary  ;  we  are  obliged  to  feek  for  new  and 

*  fingular  fenfes  in  the  paiTage.''  For,  as  before  obferved, 
one  fingular  exprcilion  and  new  idea,  furrounded  with, 
other  exprefùons  and  ideas,  that  are  common  and 
plain,  cannot  create  any  very  great  difficulty  ;  and  all. 
the  reft  of  the  paragraph  is  compofed  of  terms  and 
thoughts  that  are  neither  uncommon  nor  obfcure,  while 
unembarraffed  with  forced  and  unnatural  interpretations. 
Befides,  it  is  well  knovvn  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  ufed 
ihefe  feveral  phrafes,  The  face  of  God  ;  the  majelly  of 
God  ;  the  gloiy  of  God  ;  and  the  Word  of  God,  as 
exprefiive  of  the  fame  idea.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrafe 
ufes  them  as  fynonymous  expreffio-ns.  And  Rabbi 
Jonathan  rende» s  thefe  words,  *'  The  Lord  faid  unto 
*'  my  Lord  ;"  by,  *  The  Lord  faid  unto  his  Word.' 
In  fnort,  it  is  pLin  that  thefe  words,  with  which  the 
gofpel  according  to  John  is  introduced,  "  Jn  the  begin- 
*'  ning  was  the  Word,"  carry  in  them  a  manifefl;  allufion  to 
the  beginning  of  Gcnefis  :  this  evangelift  beginning  the 
hillory  of  Jefus  Chrilt,  with  the  firlt  works  of  the  Son» 
of  God  ;  giving  us  to  underftand,  that  he  is  the  firfl 
Caufe  of  all  things,  and  that  before  the  creation  he 
was  with  God  ;  while  the  other  evangelifh  begin  their 
jnterefting  narratives  with  his  manifellation  in  the  flelh. 
The  beloved  dijciple  informs  us,  that  the  Word,  by 
\;hom   the  world  was  created,  was  not  a  mere  found, 


1 


«EC T.  ni.  171  CHAP.  IK. 

Hkc  the  word  of  man  ;  but  a  Divine  perfon,  who  exited 
"with  God,  and  was  God  ;  and  exprefsly  tells  us,  ti  at 
this  Perfon  is  Jesus  Christ. 

Thefe  conliderations  are  fufHcient  to  remove  the 
doubt,  which  fome  fuggeft,  about  the  genuinenefs  of  the 
beginning  of  this  gofpel  :  as  if  it  favoured  more  of  the 
•wild  fpecvilatians  of  the  Gno(Hcs,  than  of  revealed  truth. 
For  it  appears  from  hence,  that  the  ideas  are  not  fo 
new  and  (trange  as  they  imagine. — Befides,  to  fuppofe 
that  Cerltithus  compofcd,  either  the  beginning  of  this 
gofpel,  or  the  Revelation^  is  an  ungrounded  furmife. 
Not  the  former;  for  it  ought  not  to  be  detached  from 
the  reft,  nor  from  John's  epiltles,  nor  from  his  Apocalypfe; 
in  which  thefe  phrafes,  the  Word;  the  IVord  of  God;  and 
Jefus  Chrill,  the  true  God,  are  ufed  repeatedly  Not, 
the  latter;  for  Cerinthus  would  never  think  it  advifabic 
•to  forge  and  publifh  books  under  the  name  of  his  avowed 
oppofer  ;  nor  would  the  churches  of  A  fia  have  received 
-the  abfurd  imaginations  of  tliat  heretic,  for  the  gofpel 
of  John — Ncr  can  any  two  things  be  more  incompatible, 
than  the  doclrines  of  the  evangelill,  and  the  dogmas  of 
that  herefiarch.  Cerinthus  believed,  that  angels  created 
the  world  ;  that  a  fallen  angel  gave  the  law  ;  and  than 
Jefus  was  really  the  fon  of  Jofeph.  He  taught,  than 
7(/ii^  was  a  man,  and  67jr//?  the  power  of  God  ;  which 
power  came  upon  him  at  his  baptifm,  and  returned  to 
heaven  at  hh  death.  He  affirmed,  ih.'.t  Jefus  fuffcred 
the  inconveniences  of  life,  and  the  violence  of  perfecr- 
tion  ;  but  that  C h riji  wrought  flupendous  miracles,  and 
and  was  fuperior  to  all  oppofition — That  Chriji  was 
impaffible,  though  Jefus  futfered  ;  and  that  Chri/I  fell 
upon  the  apoftles,  at  the  feafl  of  Pentecofl.  I  pafs  over 
the  crimes  which  he  authorized,  and  the  extravagant 
fubordination  of  ^ons  ;  which  were  common  to  him 
with  other  Gnoftics.  Nov/  thefe  are  fach  notions  as 
have  not  the  leail  countenance  in  the  gofpel  according 
to  John.  Why,  then,  thefe  unreafonable  doubts  and 
reillef?  inquiries?  If  the  paragraph  under  confideratioQ 
F  2 


^iZCT.   III.  172  CHAP.   X, 

îîiuft  be  fufpected  of  being  compofea  by  a  Gnoftic,  bccaufe 
it  eitabliflics  the  pre-cxiftence  and  Divinity  of  Jcfus 
Chrifl  ;  wc  may,  for  the  fame  reafon,  fufpecl  the  whole 
New  Tertament  to  be  the  work  of  thofe  heretics,  and 
rejed  it  all  at  once. 


CHAPTER     X, 

The  Arian  hypothefis  equally  indefenfibic, 

V/N  a  fjperficial  furvey  of  the  Arian  fyrtem, 
it  feems  much  more  plaufible  than  that  of  Socinus  ; 
f)ccaufe  it  preferves  entire  the  pre-exiflence  of  Jcfus 
Chrirt,  which  is  a  doctrine  mort  exprefsly  and  repeatedly 
:-)entioned  in  the  New  Tedament:  and,  indeed,  were 
we  to  fiop  here,  the  former  would  undoubtedly  have 
the  advantage.  But  when  we  more  clofely  confider  the 
r.ibjeft  we  find,  that  the  Socinian  hypothefis  is  free 
from  feveral  capital  difficulties  which  attend  that  of  the 
Arians,  thofe  ancient  enemies  to  the  caufe  of  truth  and 
ihe  Divinity  of  Jefus  Chrift.  This  will  appear  if  the 
fullowing  things  be  confidered. 

The  term  God,  mult  neceflarily  be  underflood,  either 
as  a  name  of  office^  or  of  nature  ;  as  denoting  externa! 
dualities  and  trufls,  or  intr'wfic  excellence  and  ejfential 
perfe(5tions.  The  Arians,  therefore,  cannot  defend 
themfelves,  when  they  are  urged  with  the  confideration 
of  the  name,  God,  which  is  given  to  Jefus  Chrift,  by 
faying  ;  '  It  is  a  name  of  office,  and  Chrift  only  bears 
*  it  as  an  ambafTador  of  the  Mo(i  High  ;*  which  is  the 
evafion  of  the  Socinians.  For  as  the  difciples  of  Arius 
confefs,  that  Chrifl:  exifled,  not  only  before  his  appear- 
ance in  the  world,  but  alfo  before  the  creation  ;  they 
cannot  deny  but  he  was,  in  fome  fenfc,  God,  before  the 


«TECT.   îïi.  473  CHAP.   X. 

'formation  of  the  unlverfe.  Thofe  pa/Higes  of  Scripture, 
which  they  explain  of  his  prc-exidence,  are  very  cxprcfs, 
in  this  refpect.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
*'  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was 
"  God."  But  if  they  allow,  that  the  Word  was  luhh 
God^  in  the  beginning;  and  tliat  he  'ujas  Hod^  before 
the  formation  of  the  world  ;  they  ought  alfo  to  grant, 
that  he  was  '•  in  the  form  of  God  ;"  that  he  is  **  the 
**  true  God  ;  the  mighty  God  ;  the  great  God  ;  Gcd 
**  bleffed  fur  ever/'  'For  there  is  no  more  reafon  10 
allow  the  one,  than  there  is  to  acknowledge  the  other. 
But,  as  they  deny  this  confequence,  they  will  permit 
me  to  a(k.  How  the  names  and  praifes,  which  are 
appropriated  to  the  Great  Supreme,  can  belong  to  Chrifl 
in  his  fird  cilate  ;  in  which  he  neither  repreJentcdGod^ 
nor  acïed  in  his  name,  nor  was  his  ambnjfador  to  n:en  ? 
For  if  he  were  a  mere  creature,  however  exalted  ar»d 
glorious,  it  could  not  be  lav/ful  to  exprefs  his  effence 
and   attributes   by  the  name,  God.     Can    it   be  faid, 

'^vithout  impiety,  of  the  mo(l  excellent  creature,  *'  He 

.**  exills  in  the  form  of  God,  and  thinks  it  not  robbery 
**  to  be  equal  with  God  ;'*  Though  the  Logos,  in  his 
pre-exiilent  (tate,  poiTe/Ted  a  Divine  glory,  in  comparifon 

soUh  us;  can  we,  on  the  Arian  hypothecs,  attribute  a 
Divine  glory  to  him,  when  confidered  as  being  <w'uh 
God  ?  What,  mufl  he  bear  the  name  of  that  incomprc- 
henfible  Being,  who  is  infinitely  more  exalted  above 
him,  than  the  moll  excellent  creature  is  above  the 
meanefl:  infedi,  or  tlie  rmall£;{  atom  Î — Inflead,  there- 

,fore,  of  faying,  **  He  was  in  the  form  of  God,"  before 
he  humbled  himfelf  ;  we  muft  affirm,  that  he  was  always 
in  the  form  of  a  fervant,  in  the  form  of  a  creature  :  and 
that  tnue/j  more  in  heaven,  than  when  upon  earth  ; 
much  more  he/ore  the  creation  of  the  world;  than  whjan 
he  converfed  with  men.  For  with  what  perfections 
foever  a  creature  may  be  endued,  it  is  much  more  in 
the  form  of  a  fervant,  when  in  the  immediate  prefencc 
of  God,  tlun  when  among   men.     Inilead,  therefore. 


9£CT.  111.  174  CHAP.  X. 

of  the  facred  writers  informing  us,  that  Chrlft,  in  his 
firfl  e(bte  and  when  with  his  Father,  ivas  God  ;  they 
(hould  have  faid,  that  he  was  then,  comparatively, 
nothing.  As  a  nobleman,  whofe  grandeur  is  very 
confiderable,  when  in  a  country  village  ;  lofes  much  of 
his  fjlcndour,  when  at  the  king's  court  and  in  the  royal 
prefence. 

Again  :  Jefus  Chrifl,  confidered  in  his  firfl  eftate, 
and  as  with  God,  hears  the  name,  God,  either  becaufe 
he  h  God,  or  becaufe  he  ads  as  God,  or  becaufe  he 
reprefents  God.  Not  the  frf;  for,  on  the  Arian 
principles,  he  is  a  creature;  and  therefore,  how  excellent 
ioever  he  be,  he  cannot,  without  falHiood,  be  defcribed 
by  a  name  confecrated  to  the  Creator.  Nor  the  fecotid; 
lor  in  his  fiiil  ftate,  before  the  creation,  he  did  not 
act  at  all  ;  or,  if  it  were  fuppofed  that  he  did,  it  was 
only  as  the  minifter  of  God  ;  and,  confequently,  he 
ought  not  to  bear  a  name  appropriated  to  the  firft  Caufe. 
X\or  can  it  be  the  hjl ;  for  he  could  not  reprefent  God 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  heavenly  world,  before  they 
ïiad  an  exigence.  Nor,  when  the  angels  were  formed, 
Jiad  they  any  need  of  fuch  a  reprefentation.  For  they 
5ee  God  face  to  face;  that  is,  as  much  as  is  neceffary 
to  the  plenitude  of  their  holinefs,  happinefs,  and  glory. 
ÎMor  could  he  reprefent  him  to  men  ;  for,  at  the  time 
fuppofed,  they  were  not  created.  Befides,  why,  in 
order  to  reprefent  God,  muft  he  bear  his  name  ?  May 
not  a  fuperior  be  reprefented,  without  the  perfon  repre- 
fenting  bear  his  peculiar  chara<5ler  ? — Here  the  Arians 
are  greatly  embarraflcd  ;  which  embarraffment  is  much 
încreafed  by  confidering,  that  Jefus  bears  the  name, 
God,  with  difHnguifliing  and  fublime  epithets.  For 
lie  is  called,  the  true  God;  the  mighty  God;  the 
GREAT  God  ;  and  God  blessed  for  ever. 

Another  difficulty  attending  Ûyt  Arian  hypothefis,  is 
this  :  They  cannot  explain  thofe  pafTages  of  Scripture 
which  affert,  thatChrift  "  made  the  worlds;"  that  he 
♦*  created  all  things,  vifible  and  invifible  j"  that  he  "  laid 


SECT.  III.  175  CHAP.  X. 

**  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  that  the  heavens  are 
**  the  works  of  his  hands  ;  and  that  he  u])holds  all  things 
**  by  the  word  of  his  power  ;" — they  cannot,  I  faj»^, 
explain  thefe,  and  fimilar  paflnges.  without  contradicting 
themfelves  ;  by  acknowledging  his  Divinity,  properlv  fo 
called,  after  they  have  denied  it  ;  or  without  runninf 
on  the  mort  evident  abfuidities.  For  as  ihey  underfland 
thofe  pafTages  literally,  which  declare  that  God  "  made 
**  all  things  by  Jefus  Chrilt  i'"  and  that  *'  without  hinn 
•*  was  not  any  thing  made  that  v\as  made;"  they  are 
obliged  to  attrihu'.e  to  him  the  creation  of  heaven  and 
earth,  with  all  their  inhabitants.  It,  therefore,  necefla- 
rily  follows,  that  the  Word  either  made  all  things  by 
his  oivn  power,  as  the  fun  enlightens  the  earth  by  hii 
beams  ;  or,  having  no  inherent  power  for  fuch  a  work, 
%vas  the  mere  infrument  by  which  the  infinite  power  of 
God  exerted  itlelf  ;  as  the  apodles,  who  had  no  power 
of  their  own,  by  which  to  work  miracles,  were  only 
inflruments  in  the  hand  of  Omnipotence,  to  control  the 
courfe  of  nature,  and  to  aflonifh  and  blefs  the  world. 
If  the  latter^  we  have  reafon  to  comphin  of  being 
deceived  by  the  language  of  Scripture,  which  fays 
cxprefsly  ;  "  All  things  were  made  by  him."  Ho  unac- 
countable it  is,  that  he  (hould  be  called  God.  if  he  be 
only  the  inltrument  by  which  Divine  power  and  wifdom 
<iifplay  themfelves  !  And,  conGdering  the  care  which 
the  apolHestake,  to  guard  againll  a  fuppofition  that  they 
wrought  miracles  by  thcirown  power;  we  cannot  but  think. 
it  exceeding  flrange,  and  as  tending  greatly  to  miflead 
our  conceptions,  in  matters  of  the  highefl  importance  to 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  falvation  of  men,  that  they  are 
not  equally  careful  to  inform  us,  That  it  was  not  by  hit 
own  power  that  Jefus  formed  the  univerfe  and  wrought 
his  wonderful  works.  But,  fo  far  from  it,  they  repeat- 
edly declare,  that  their  Divine  Mafter  is  he  "  by  whom 
<*  and  for  whom  all  things  are*' — That  he  "  laid  the 
**  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the 
"  works  of  his  hands" — That  he  ♦*  created  all  thingj 


0£CT.  IIÏ.  176  CHAP  ». 

*'  vifîble  and  invifible  ;"  from  the  loftiefl  angel  that 
furrounds  the  throne,  to  the  meanen:  worm  that  crawls 
-in  the  du(t.  Now  thefe,  and  iuch  like  expreflions,  it 
nu(i  be  acknowledged,  are  very  exrravagart,  if  Jefus 
contributed  no  more  to  the  prcdafrion  of  the  ur.iverfe, 
than  the  apoftles  did  to  the  miracles 'wrought 'by  their 
inftrumentality. —  I3ut  if  it  be  laid,   *  Jefus  formed  the 

*  creaiuies  by  his  o'wn  power,  whicli  he  received  from 

•  the  Supreme  Being  ;'  then  it  follows,  that  the  Father 
communkoUd  to  him  the  power  of  creating.  But  that 
is  an  thjinite  power  ;  for  it  fmmounts  the  infinite  difUnce 
vhich  i?  between  ht'mg^vA  nothivg.  Now  infinite  power 
is  an  infinite  perfection  ;  and,  it  is  manifeil,  that  an 
infinite  perfe<5tion  cannot  be  communicated  to  a  creature, 
which  is  and  muli  be  finite  in  its  powers  and  capacities. 
The  fuppcfidon  of  the  contrary  is  abford,  as  it  involves 
■À.  contradiction  :  becaufe  it  implies,  that  fuch  a  creature 
is  both  finite  and  infinite. 

Again  :  If  Jefus  Chrifl,  being  only  an  exalted  creature^ 
«iid  create  all  things  ;  he  mud  be  confidered,  either  as 
^n  inflntmental  caule,  or  as  the  principal  caufe.  Not  the 
former  ;  for  no  inftrument  can  ad  but  where  there  is  an 
obje<5t,  and  fuch  an  one  to  which  it  is  in  fome  meafur« 
proportioned.  But,  in  the  work  of  creation,  there  is 
no  obje<5l  on  which  to  a<5t  ;  the  work  itftjf  producing 
the  objecfl:.  If  the  latur,  he  is  the  Creator  ;  lie  pofiTefTes 
an  infinite  power  ;  he  is  truly  and  properly  Goo.  For 
if  he  be  inveiled  with  infinite  power,  why  not  with 
unerring  wifdom  and  fupreme  gocdnefs  ?  Why  not  with 
every  perfedion  of  the  Deity  ? 

Further  :  Either  Jtfas  Chrill  aded  ahne.  in  tli« 
creation  of  all  things,  or  in  conjundirm  with  his  Father. 
If  the  former  y  why  is  the  formation  of  the  world  ever 
attributed  to  the  Father  ?  If  the  latter,  either  he  exerted 
the  fame,  or  a  different  power.  If  \hç  fame,  it  was  an 
infinite  power  ;  for  fuch  is  the  Father's.  If  a  different 
power,  it  was  created  and  finite.  But  as  Omnipotence 
■fteeds  no  coadjutor,  (to  will,  and  to  create,  btiri^  tbc 


3ICT.  III.  \']']  CHAP.   Xi 

fame  with  God)  fo  the  fuppofition  of  a  Jinitt  power 
giving  eKiitence  to  the  univerfe,  and  the  idea  of  a 
created 'Cxtà.K.csx^  are  the  firit-born  ofabfurdities.  Nothing 
more  ofFenfive,  nothing  more  (hocking  to  connmon  fenfc, 
than  the  thought  of  a  creature  creating  the  world  ;  yet 
with  fach  inconfiftencies  is  the  Arian  fyftenti  attended, 
and  fuch  abfurdities  do  its  abettors  digeft. 

Once  more  ;  On  the  Arian  hypothecs,  it  is  impoflibic 
to  defend  Mofes  and  the  patriarchs,  from  a  charge  of 
idolatry  ;  in  worfliipping,  as  the  true  God,  the  angel 
M'ho  appeared  to  them  fo  often.  Becaufe  they  cannot 
fay,  with   the   Socinians,    *  That   this  angel   was   not 

*  wor (hipped  on    account  of  his  own  excellence,  but 

*  becaufe  he  reprefented  God  ;  and  that,  detached  from 

*  his  exalted  othce  and  miniftry,  he  was  not  worthy  of 

*  more  honour  than  any  other  of  thofe  heavenly  intelli- 

*  genccs.'  For  this  angel,  according  to  them,  was  the 
\¥ord;  whom  the  evangelill  teaches  us  to  confider, 
as  exiifing  from  the  beginning  with  God,  and  a»  being 
God-  So  that  all  the  honours  he  claimed  and  received 
from  the  ancient  patriarchs,  mud  be  looked  upon  as 
due  to  his  own  perfedions  :  and,  confequently,  we  are 
taught  to  apply  to  an  angel  thofe  oracles  which  had  for 
their  objed  the  eternal  God — To  apply  to  the  fervant, 
what  is  peculiar  to  his  Lord  ;  to  a  fubjed,  what  is  due 
only  to  tiie  Sovereiga,  But  tliis  conlidcratiaa  will  be 
rsfunaed  hereafter. 


SÏCT.  III.  178  CHAP.  XT, 


CHAPTER     XL 

1'he  Larguage  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  Socinian  hjpothcfi», 
ib  obfcure,  ablurd,  and  not  confiitent  with  piety. 

j\  S  to  the  obfcuniy  of  Scripture,  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Socinians,  it  is  ib  apparer.t  that  I  need  not 
fpend  any  more  time  in  proving  it  ;  I  (hall,  therefore, 
only  inquire  into  the  occaiion  of  it.  The  obfcurity  we 
f  nd  in  many  paflages  of  facred  Writ,  is  rediicible  to  one 
•or  another  of  the  following  heads.  Let  us  now  fee, 
U'hether  the  darknefs  and  difTiculiics  attending  thofc 
texts,  which  are  controverted  between  us  and  our 
opponents,  be  referable  to  any  of  them. 

In  many  parts  of  the  Scripture  there  is  an  obfcurity 
Rttendina.  nhich  ariles  from  the  nature  of  the  things 
propoiec  to  us.  To  this  head  belong  the  di/ficulties 
Wiih  which  we  meet  in  thofe  pafTages  of  Scriptu'-e  which 
relate  to  the  nature  of  God  ;  the  myllery  of  the  incar- 
oation  ;  the  decrees  of  eledion  and  reprobation  ;  the 
fatisfac^ion  of  Jefus  Chrill^  the  eternity  of  thofe 
•lorments  which  await  the  wicked  ;  and  all  thofe  great 
and  fublimefubjeét?,  which  are  incomprehenhble  by  man, 
except  they  ceafe  to  be  what  they  are,  or  he  ceafe  to  b^ 
what  he  is. — But  we  ca;  not  redcce  to  this  principle  the 
obfcurity  which  our  advcrfaries  find,  in  the  paflages 
before  mentioned.  For  there  is  not,  there  cannot  be, 
any  great  myflery  in  a  creature  revealing  the  counfel  of 
God.  It  is  no  iurprifing  thing  for  a  man  to  live  at  the 
time  when  the  gofpel-difpenfation  commenced,  or  in  the 
time  of  John  the  Baptift;  to  be  known  of  God  only  ;  to  be 
appointed  to  a  more  glorious  rainidry  than  that  of  the 
prophets  ;  or  for  a  man  to  be  made  flefli,  that  is,  to 
•paitake  of  a  corporal  nature.  It  was  no  very  wonderful 
thing,  according  to  the  interpretation  adopted  by  our 
opponents,  v/hich  Jefus  airerted,  when  he  faid  of  himfefef; 


^•CT.  III.  l'79  CHAP.   Xth 

«  1  was,  in  appointment,  before  Abraham — I  pofTefTed 

*  a  glory    with    the    Father,    before    the   world   was } 

*  becaufe  it  was  determined,  in  the  Divine  decree,  that 

*  I  Hiould  poffefs  It.' 

Another  caufe  of  obfcarity  in  the  facred  Writings,  is, 
The  Jarknefs  which  was  brought  on  our  minds,  by  ih'"^ 
flrd  grand  apoltafy.  *'  If  our  gofptl  be  h;d,  it  is  hid 
"  to  tljem  that  are  loll  ;  in  whom  the  god  of  thiî 
*'  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  that  believe 
*'  not — The  natural  man  difcerneth  not  the  things  of 
•*  the  Spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them  "  We 
ihould,  ther^ore,  examine  ourfelves  and  fee,  whether 
the  obscurity  of  which  we  complain,  fpring  ftom  our 
own  depravity.  It  might,  indeed,  be  juftly  fufpe^fted 
to  arife  from  this  quarter,  in  reference  to  the  controverted 
texis,  if  we  were  the  perfons  who  found  tliem  obfcure  ; 
but  as  it  is  chiefly  our  oppofers,  they  ought  to  acknow- 
ledge the  obfcurity.  For  in  our  fenfe,  the  ohjc^  is 
fublime  and  myderious,  but  the  language  plain  and 
familiar  :  in  theirs,  the  objed  is  well  proportioned  to 
our  capacities,  but  the  language  is  obfcare  and  perplexed. 
' — Further:  Are  we,  or  our  adverfaries — let  common 
fenfe  judge — Are  we  or  our  adverfaries,  the  perfons 
who  are  chargeable  with  a  fecret  defire  of  giving  an 
unnatural  turn  to  thefe  pafTjges,  in  favour  of  our  own 
opinion  ;  and  with  aifling  under  the  influence  of  evil 
partions,  in  finding  out  entirely  new  and  rery  extraordi- 
nary fenfes  ?  What  miflake,  what  irregularity  can  there 
be  in  fuppofing  that  thefe  exprefT.ons,  "In  the  begin- 
"  ning,"  are  to  be  underftood  in  a  general  fenfe  ?  Qr 
that  thefe,  **  The  Word  was  God,"  include  fjmething 
more  exalted  and  more  Divine  tiian  the  glory  of  a  mere 
fervant  ?  Or  that  thefe  words,  *'  By  him  all  things  were 
**  made,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that 
•*  was  made  ;"  (ignify  fomeihing  more,  than  preaching 
the  gofpel,  reforming  the  world,  and  the  eifeds  which 
follovv'ed  ?  Or  that  thefe,  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I 
"  am. 


«SECT.  liî.  l3o  CHAP.  XU 

peifonal  excellence,  which  do  not  agree  to  the  nieaned 
of  rational  creatures  ?  Who,  I  aflv,  is  able  to  fix  and  to 
prove  a  charge  ofmiftakeupon  us,  or  of  any  extravagance, 
for  thus  thinking  cf  fuch  paflages  as  thefe  ? 

Again  :  The  genius  cf  the  original  tongues,  which, 
in  fome  cafes,  is  very  different  from  ours,  is  another 
caufe  of  obicurity.  It  is  granted,  however,  that  this 
is  not  the  fource  ofthcfe  difficulties  with  which  we  meet 
in  the  })afi<ige3  dilputed  between  us.  The  genius  of  the 
facred  language  is  far  from  leading  us  to  invert  a  mere 
creature  with  the  moit  glorious  charaiters  of  the  Creator; 
To  this  it  is  quite  averfe.  Other  languages  have  fome- 
thing  heatheniih  and  in^i'pious  in  them.  They  do  not 
•fcruple  to  ufe  the  terms,  adorable ^  divine,  facrifice^  inctnfe^ 
eiernily,  and  ftipreme  good,  when  fpeuking  of  a  creature. 
But  the  language  of  infpiration,  being  the  language  of 
God,  never  proflitutes  terms  of  fuch  iacred  fignificancy 
to  little  or  bafe  parpofes  ;  is  always  fober,  religious,  and 
confident  with  itfelf.  The  penmen  of  Scripture,  it  is 
true,  fometimes  ufe  hyperboles  j  but  never  fuch  as  can 
injure  the  glory  of  God. 

Further  :  The  Scripture  is  obfcure  in  reference  to 
events  which  are  yet  in  the  womb  of  futurity.  Great 
perfpicuity,  in  prophecy,  might  impede  the  accomplifh- 
ment  of  it.  No  body  wonders,  for  inltance,  that  things 
fhould  be  involved  in  asnigmatical  figures,  in  the  vifions 
of  Ezekiel,  fo  as  to  render  his  difcourfes  obfcure  ; 
becaufe  they  are  the  fecrets  of  futurity.  But,  in  the 
expreiTions  before  us,  tiiere  is  no  prophecy.  They,  in 
general,  refer  to  the  time  paft.  Such  as,  "  Before 
^*  Abraham  was,  I  am.  In  the  beginning  was  the 
*'  Word.  The  word  v/as  with  God.  The  Word 
**  was  God."  The  obfcuritj',  therefore,  of  which  our 
Gpponcnts  complain,  cannot  arife  from  this  fource. 

Once  more  ;  A  falfe  philofophy,  or  a  mifapplication 
of  that  which  is  true,  is  another  occafion  of  obfcurity 
in  many  p.a{lages  of  Scripture,  Various  texts,  in  the 
Old  and  in  the  NewTcdaraent,  though  clear  in  themfelves, 


Sf CT.    in.  11  L  CfIAl\    XI. 

have  been  much  obfcured  by  fv-hoLillic  and  j  hilofophical 
comments.  Yet  even  this  cannot  be  th;  Ijurce  cf  thol^* 
i>;fHcuI:ies  which  our  adverfdiici  H  .id,  in  the  pafTages 
cjntroveited  between  them  and  us.  Tor  the  tiueititm 
is  not  about  anyobfcurity  in  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  explained  according  to  cur  fentiments  ;  but  as  inter- 
preted according  to  thtirs.  And  they  jTetend,  tha: 
their  hypothefis  is  quite  free  from  the  cloi.dy  and 
cmbarraffing  Lbtilties  of  the  fchools  ;  \et,  it  is  en  thtir 
principles  that  thefe  pafTages  are  fo  exceedingly  cifHcuh 
;.nd  cbf:ure. 

This,  then,  is  an  obfcurity  which  has  rone  cf  thcfe 
caufes  that  are  common  to  difiicult  pafTages  cfScripiute  ; 
v.hich  is  very  furprifing.  But  this  lurprife  will  ii^icriaf::, 
vhen  i:  is  confidered,  that  as  the  obfcurity  has  rot  i's 
c.'.ufe  in  us,  nor  can  be  reafonably  afcribed  to  us,  it  rnu(t 
be  attributed  to  God.  But  if  He  be  the  only  caufe,  it 
will  be  impoHible  for  us  to  account  for  it,  w  iih  honour  to 
1  is  chara-^er.  For  Lis  dtfign  in  it  could  rot  be  to 
glorify  himfelf.  Becaufe  an  obfcurity  in  hi:  Revelation, 
v.hich  leads  us  tobelieve  that  J-^fus,  a  mere  man,  ii  God  ; 
tliat  he  created  the  world  ;  and  is  invoiced  \^  itii  the 
ciTential  glories  of  the  Supreme  Being,  cannot  j  oinbly 
tend  to  the  honour  of  God. — Nor  could  his  defign  be  to 
aiuminale  the  minds  of  men.  For  how  fhculd  an  obfcu- 
rity enlighten  the  mind  ?  Befidcs,  was  there  ro  ether 
way  of  communicating  heavenly  light,  v.  ithout  cxpofing 
mankind  to  the  danger  of  fo  baneful  an  error  I — Nor  was 
it  to  try  our  faith.  For  though  the  greatnefs  of  the 
objev5ls  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  the  contrariety  which 
is  in  them  to  our  natural  prejudices,  may  ferve  to^xercifc 
our  faith  ;  yet  it  does  no:  appear  that  ambiguous  and 
obfcure  exprelTions,  if  employed  to  rcpref^nt  thofe 
objecls,  could  anfwer  any  fuch  purpofc.  And  though 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  intended  to  pu l  our  faith  to  the  tiial  ; 
he  certainly  would  have  been  very  far  from  doing  it  in 
fuch  a  way^  as  had  a  natural  tendency  to  injure  the  glory 
of  God  End  hazard  our  falraiion,  by  lageefting  fuch 


^LCT.   III.  l'^2  CI-IAF.    XÏ. 

ideas  as  cpcrcl  a  door  to  blafphcn-:}'  and  idolatry.  If, 
not  with  (landing,  the  Spirit  of  infjiiration  really  deligned, 
that  the  padrigcs  i.i  ruefiion  (liouid  be  undeiltood  in  ihe 
fenfe  of  our  adverfaries,  he  has  been  greatly  difappointed  ; 
fjr  there  h.ave  been  comparatively  few  that  have  fo 
ronfidered  them,  or  \vhof=  faith  l;.is  been  {o  exercifcd 
by  them. 

The  hypothefis  oT  our  opponents  not  or.ly  renders 
the  langu-'ge  of  Scripture  cblcure,  but  alfo  falfr  and 
i'ccet'.fuL  A  difcourii  is  generally  confidered  as  falf?, 
v'hen  thofe  ideas  which  common  conf^^nt  and  cuflom 
]  ave  affixed  to  the  terms  of  which  it  confilb,  are  not 
found  to  be  true;  even  thojgli  the  fpeaker,  or  wri;er, 
faould  annex,  mentally,  a  lignification  to  «ach  word, 
fj  as  to  render  the  v.  hole  confitfent  wiih  fad.  For 
equivocations  and  latent  r^fervation?  are  a  fpecies  of 
Ives;  though,  in  the  fenfe  cf  thofe  that  make  them, 
they  may  be  rcj.1  truths. — Now  it  is  dcmonflrable,  that 
the  fentimcn^s  of  our  oppof«:rs  rend'^r  the  language  of 
Scripture  dv^ceitful.  For  if  it  be  lawful  to  give  the 
fàcred  Records  a  fenfe  that  is  remote  fn)m  the  ordinary 
l-crnili cation  of  the  terms  which  arc  ufed,  there  is  no 
opinion  fo  ahfurd,  no  dodrine  fo  mcnflrous,  but  may 
be  eafiiy  e'lab'iilicd  by  the  Bible. 

Admi'tlng  t'ie  lawfulnefs  of  foch  a  procedure,  it 
would  be  no  hard  matter  fur  me  prove,  that  the  true 
God  had  no  hand  in  the  work  of  creation  ;  nay,  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  any  fuch  thing  in  the  ancient 
oracles.  Even  fjch  a  feniiment,  horrid  as  it  is,  I  could 
maintain,  without  offering  greater  violence  to  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  TcfUment,  than  our  adverfaries  do  to 
thofe  of  the  New.— I  would  aflert,  that  he  who  created 
the  heavens  and  the  e:;rrh  was  an  angcly  the  minifter  of 
Jehovah  ;  one  who  is  not  God,  by  nature,  but  merely 
by  office.  If  reminded  of  the  names  given  him  io 
Scripture  ;  1  would  anfver  with  the  Socinians,  Fie 
bears  .them  only  as  be  is  the  minider  and  reprefentative 
of  the  Mod  High.     The  epithet  ahm^hty^  which  is 


SECT.  III.  103  ciiAi-.  x:. 

fometimes  given  him,  would  not  much  embarrafs  me. 
I  lliouli  fay,  this  angel  does  ail  things  in  cur  lo;vcr 
world,  by  the  will  iA"  the  Gic«t  Supic.Tje,  who  has 
committed  the  admiiUilration  of  its  government  to  hin^  ; 
hut  there  are  other  worlds,  aJ  hifiiuiuiny  which  do  no:, 
in  the  leall,  come  under  his  control.  And  though  he 
is  called  "  the  fearcher  of  hearts;''  yet  he  bears  thj 
augufl  charader,  only  becaufe  the  Ivîolt  High  God 
reveals  to  him  every  thing  that  pafTes  in  the  foul.  Ho 
is,  indeed,  faid  to  have  *'  cieated  all  things  ;"  but  iheie 
woids  are  to  be  underliood  with  great  hmitatlon  :  not 
of  all  things  without  exception  ;  but  only  of  fuch  .ts 
lefpeâ:  us,  or  belong  to  this  vifiblc  world.  He  was,  i 
confefs,  ivorjlvppedi  and  worihip  hits  been  confidertd 
as  an  honour  peculiar  to  the  true  God  :  but  ihcre  is  a 
very  impo; t:un  diiHncHon  which  is  here  uj  Le  ni«id<., 
between  Jupreme  ^nôi  j'uôor J nate  worihip.  And  ihouid 
it  be  faid,  This  dependence  of  the  angel,  who  is  called 
God,  upon  the  Supreme  Being,  is  no  where  mentioned 
in  Scripture  ;  I  ihould  foon  produce  inflances  to  the 
contrary.  As  for  example  ;  **  The  Lord  rained  upon 
Sodom — brimltone  and  fire,  from  the  Lord."  And 
ihofe  words  to  Abraham,  fooken  bv  him  who  is  called' 
GciD  ;  "  Now  I  know  that  thou  fearelt  God.'*  And 
fo  whi:n  the  God  of  Ifrael  is  reprtfented,  as  the  greatelt 
•'  among  the  gods  ;"  may  wc  not  coniider  him  as  the 
greatcll  among  the  angels,  to  whom  the  Infinite  Supreme 
has  committed  the  government  of  ftveral  parts  of  the 
univerfe  ?  which  would  imj)Iy,  that  the  God  of  Ifrael 
is  not  the  Supreme  God.  in  vain  would  it  he  objeckd. 
That  the  God  oi  Ifrael  is  the  creator  of  heaven  and 
earth  ;  and  that  the  d.t\  of  creating  fjpj)ofes  an  infinite 
power,  which  cannot  belong  to  any  buc  the  Mofl  High, 
For  our  adverfaries  furnilh  me  with  a  foluiion  of  this 
dilH:ulty,  by  ihewing  that  the  t^rm  crtavit  does  n»^L 
always  fignify  to  produce  o::t  cf  noih':r.^; ;  but  merely  to 
produce  ;  and  fometimes,  to  frfiion^  to  ilifpoj'e.  —  If  i: 
■«'CTC  cbjce'lcd,  Thj  God  of  Ifratl  ipcak^as  ih:  true 
ÇL2 


^LCT,  111.  I?4  Cll.\i\    XI, 

God  when  he  fays,  "  I  will  not  give  my  glory  to 
'*  another  ;"  it  mij^ht  be  anfweieil,  The  angel  who  h?.s 
received  the  government  of  this  world,  has  a  glory 
peculisr  to  hinifelf,  excluhve  of  other  intelligences,  and 
poJlefTts  this  glory  in  oppolition  to  idols,  which  are 
vanity. — le  might  be  further  fuppofed,  that  the  true 
God  has  granted  him  the  power  of  communicating  to 
another,  fo  much  of  his  empire  as  he  pleafes  ;  and, 
therefore,  he  could  impait  it  to  Jefus  Chriit,  as  the 
t;ue  God  did  to  him. — Now  Ï  leave  our  adverfarits  to 
judge,  whether  it  would  be  eafy  for  them  to  force  me 
in  thefe  entrenchmtnts,  which  they  have  prepared  ;  and 
to  confider,  of  what  va(l  importance  it  is,  never  to 
deprive  the  terms  of  Scripture  of  their  natural  (ignifica- 
tion.  Becaufe  if  we  once  take  the  liberty  of  affixing 
new  ideas,  to  the  words  God^  nnorJJApy  and  fuch  like 
expreilions,  we  deilroy  all  certainty  in  the  anology  of 
faiih  and  in  the  facred  Scripture,  and  abandon  ourfclvts 
to  peipetual  fcepticifm. 

As  Jehovah  is  the  God  of  truth,  it  cannot  be  fuppofed, 
without  fliocking  impiety,  ihat  he  ever  defigned  to 
betray  us  into  error,  by  fpeaking  to  us  in  ambiguous 
itnd  deceitful  language.  If,  then,  fuch  a  procedure 
would  be  cor:fidercd  as  contrary  to  his  eternal  truth  ; 
it  is  no  lels  inconfiflent  wiih  his  wifdom,  nor  lefs 
den  gatory  to  the  dignity  of  his  Revelation,  to  fpeak  in 
language  that  is  abfurd  and  ridiculous.  Yet  fuch  is  the 
language  of  tlie  Bible,  in  many  places,  if  undcrflood 
according  to  the  princij)les  of  our  ojjpofers. 

What  expi cillons,  for  initance,  can  be  more  ridiculous 
than  thcfe,  if  Chii'l  be  a  mere  man,  honoured  with  the 
name.  Goo,  on  account  of  his  miniflry  ?  "  He  was 
"  made  of  the  feed  of  David,  accoiding  to  the  ilefli  V* 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  ievm,J^,jlP  If  you  undei- 
lland  it,  as  oppofed  to  fpirit,  the  fcnfe  of  the  paflage 
will  be,  Ke  was  made  of  the  feed  of  David,  according 
to  the  èody;  not  according  to  the  foul.  A  goodly 
way  of  fpcakirj,  this,  for  Ga-mali^rs  pupil,  for  ChrUPs 


I 


SECT.  Hi.  IC$5  CHAl'.    XK 

apoflle  to  ufe  !  Alexander  had  a  body  and  a  foul  ;  yet 
all  would  unite  in  ])rGnouncin<T  that  man  contemptibly 
weak,  who  fhouM  fay;  Alexander  was  made  of  thtr 
feed  of  Philip,  according  t^  the Jl^jlj.  Nay,  the  languaoc 
would  be  ablurd  in  the  mouth  of  one,  who  believes  tlie 
conqueror  of  the  world  to  be  the  fon  of  Jupiter.  Fcr 
fuch  an  one  Ihould  fay  ;  Alexander  was  not  the  fon  of 
Philip:  not,  He  was  the  Ton  of  Philip,  according  to  ths 
fi ^3.  —It  may,  perhaijs,  be  fiid,  *  Thefe  words,  "  accord- 
*'  ing  to  the  fiefh,"  are  oppofed,  not  to  the  nature  cf 

*  Chrill:,   but  to  his  heavenly  offices  and  divine  minljlry: 

*  and  the  meaning  is,  Jefus  was  made  of  the  feed  of 
'  David,  not  as  he  is  God,  or  as  he  is  honoured  witii 

*  a  divine   minidry  ;   but  as  he  is  man,  or  pofTcffed  of 

*  a  corporal  nature.'  But  Peter  was  the  fon  of  Zebedce, 
rot  as  an  apodle,  but  as  a  man  ;  his  apofllefhip  beinq  a 
divine  office,  and  coming  immediately  from  God.  Yet 
this  propofition,  Peter  was  made  of  the  feed  of  Zebedce, 
according  to  the  f.e(h,  v/ould  be  ridiculous. — ^  The  text 

*  under  confideration  may  imply,  that  Jefus  Chrill  had 
'*  a  nobkr  origin  than  other  men,  having  been  conceived 

*  by  the  Holy  Spirit.'  But  it  is  not  the  power  hy  ivhlchy 
"but  the  matter  (?/■ 'TO- ,6/t^,  hz  was  made,  that  is  intended 
by  thefe  words,  *'  He  was  made,  according  to  the  flefh;" 
Again:  Jefus  was  made  of  the  feed  of  D.ivid,  and  made 
i'.eih,  by  the  po  ver  ot'the  Holy  Ghofh  This  propofition, 
therefore,    "  Pis  was    made    of  the   feed    of   David, 

'*'  according  to  the  fiefa  ;"  is,  in  the  fenfe  of  Scri])ture, 
equivalent  to  this.  Pie  Was  made  of  the  feed  of  David» 
according  to  the  fiefh,  by  the  Holy  Gho^l.  And  if  fo, 
^ve  are  (till  at  a  lofs  for  the  meaning  of,  "  He  was  made, 
•^  according  to  the  flefh."  For  if  Chrid  be  a  mere  man, 
by  nature,  thefe  expreffions,  "  according  to  the  flefh," 
are  perfcflly  ridiculous. 

Equally  abfurd,  on  the  Socinian  hypothefis,  is  that 
celebrated  faying  of  our  Lord's  ;  "And  now,  O  Father, 
«'  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  felf,  with  the  glory 
V  v/hich  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was,"     If 

Q-3 


SECT.   Iir.  l86  CHAP.  XI. 

you  expound  thefè  words,  of  the  glory  ;^hich  Jefus  had 
in  the  Divine  decree;  you  render  the  expreflîons  abfurd, 
being  contrary  to  the  common  forms  of  fpeech.  For  it 
is  as  if  a  man  fhould  fay  ;  *  Give  me,  Lord,  the  health 

*  which   I   had  with  thee  before  the  world  was — Feed 

*  me,  O  Father,  with  my  daily  bread,  with  which  I  was 
«  fed  in  thy  prefence  before  the  world  Wr.s  created— 

*  Grant,  O  gracious  God,  that  I  may  fafely  arrive  at 

*  that  celeflial  place,  where  I  was  with  thee  before  the 

*  foundation  of  the  world.' — Many  other  inflances  might 
be  adduced  of  that  ridiculous  air  which  the  Socinian 
fentiment  gives  to  the  language  of  infpiration,  but  thefc 
may  fuffice. 

The  fame  perverfe  hypothefis  renders  the  language 
of  Scripture  impious  and  hlaf^hLmous .  This  impiety  has 
vaiious  degrees.  For  inftance  ;  The  facred  wiiters, 
when  fpeaking  of  Jefus  Chrill,  take  no  care  to  avoid 
fuch  expreffions  as  might  give  occaHon  to  blafphem}. 
Of  which  number  aie  thefe,  God;  equal  with  God;  the 
Creator  of  all  things  ;  ijoorjhip^  and  others  of  a  (imilar 
kind,  which  were  never  pioufiy  ufed  but  to  exprefs  the 
glory  of  the  Eternal  Sovereign. — Again  :  They  repre- 
fent  Jefus  Chrifl  as  ufing  thefe  exprefiions,  in  connexion 
with  others,  which  imply  an  excefiive  and  criminal 
familiarity  with  God,  if  he  be  not  of  the  fame  effencc 
with  him.  As  when  he  calls  himfelf,  the  Son,  the  can 
Son,  and  the  only  Son  of  God;  afTerting,  that  God  is  his 
Father,  not  occafionally,  and  fo  as  to  intimate  that  he 
claims  the  divine  relation  only  in  a  figurative  fenfe  ; 
but  frequently,  in  the  moft  folemn  difcourfes,  and  that 
without  any  limitation  :  faying,  my  Father,  when  an 
apoftle  would  have  faid,  rny  God;  plainly  fignifying, 
that  he  aflumts  the  exalted  title  in  a  literal  and  proper 
fenfe. — Further  :  This  impiety  appears,  to  a  fliocking 
degree,  in  the  writers  of  the  New  Teflament  placing  a 
creature  on  an  equality  with  the  Creator,  by  fuch 
expreffions  as  thefe  '  *'  He  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
**  be  equal  with  God — Philip,  he  who  hath  feen  me. 


SECT.  III.  187  CHAP.   Xî» 

**  hath  feen  the  Father."  As  if  he  who  beholds  the 
glimmering  of  a  glow-worm,  faw  the  fplendor  of  the 
fneridian  fun  !  And  by  attributing  to  Jefus,  a  mere  man, 
the  fame  authority  as  they  do  to  the  Faiher,  in  tlie  great 
commiiKon  which  was  given  to  the  apofties.  **  Go  ye, 
*'  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
**  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
**  Ghotl."  As  if  one  rtiould  fay,  Go  and  enrol  the 
people  by  the  order  of  the  king  and  his  flave  ! — A  flill 
further  degree  of  impiety  confids  in  this;  When  the 
penmen  of  Scripture  exprefs  the  honour  which  is  due  to 
Jefus  Chrifl,  they  do  it  by  the  general  term  'worjhh^^ 
vithout  ever  giving  the  leaft  intimation  that  it  means  a 
fuhordinate  worfiiip,  or  that  there  is  any  fuch  thing  : 
lliough,  on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  there  is  as 
great  a  difference  between  fupreme  and  fubordinate 
adoration,  as  ther-e  is  between  the  Creator  and  the 
creature  ;  and  thougii  it  be  certain,  that  if  a  man  Hiould 
frequently  give  the  title  of  majejly  to  any  one  but  the 
king,  he  would  be  highly  culpable  in  the  eye  of  his 
fovereign,  whatever  mental  di{Hn<flion  he  might  make 
between  fupreme  and  fubordinate  majefly;  becaufe  terms 
have  their  fignification  principally  from  general  cuflom, 
not  from  the  particular  fancy  of  the  perfon  who  ufes 
them — Once  more  :  The  apo(Hes  inveft  a  mere  creature 
with  the  qualities,  and  attribute  to  him  the  ivorh,  of 
the  great  Creator.  Nay,  which  is  carrying  impiety  to 
the  highefl  degree,  if  the  hypothecs  of  our  oppofers  be 
true,  they  boldly  apply  to  a  mere  man  the  fuhlimeji 
■oracles  of  the  Old  Teilament  ;  thofe  oracles  which  were 
intended  to  exprefs,  in  the  mofl  emphatical  manner, 
the  injimte  glories  of  the  Mofl  High.  But  this  argunaent 
^ftiall  be  the  fubjed  of  the  following  Sediou. 


SECTION     IV. 

ïf  Jesus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  cfTencc 
with  his  Father,  there  is  no  harmony- 
bet  ween  the  prophets  and  the  apoflles,  or 
between  the  Old  Teibiment  and  the  New> 


CHAPTER    I, 

"if  Jesus  Cerist  be  not  of  the  frtme  elTence  with  his  Father, 
the  Prophets,  \\ho  fpake  oï  him,  did  not  for^'fec  things  2» 
they  werj  to  come  to  pafs. 

jr\S  the  religion  of  Jcfus  depends  on  the 
-teflimony  of  the  prophets,  and  on  that  of  the  apoflles, 
united  ;  it  is  abfoluteiy  neceflary,  for  the  confirmation 
of  our  faith,  that  thefe  teftiinonies  fhould  agree  and 
mutually  fupport  each  other.  An  hypotheiis,  therefore, 
v;hich  deflroys  that  agreement  which  ought  to  fubfift 
between  thepenmen  of  the  Old,  andthe  writers  of  the  New 
Tellament,  faps  the  foundations  of  ChrilHanity.  Such 
is  the  fyflem  of  thofe  who  maintain,  that  Jefus  Chrift:  is 
a  mere  creature.  For  if  that  fentimcnt  be  true,  the 
Spirit,  by  whofe  infpiration  the  prophets  wrote,  neither 
foretold,  nor  forefaw  things  as  they  were  to  come  to  pafs 
iinder  the  gofpel-difpenfation  ;  nor  did  that  Spirit, 
^^'hom  the  apoftles  received  and  by  whofe  diredlion  they 
fpake,  underhand  the  oracles  of  the  Old  Teftament.— 
To  prove  xht  former  of  thefe  propofitions,  we  need  only 
-coofidcr,  In  what  manner  the  prophets  defcribe  the  true 


SECT.   ï\\  189  CHAP.   :-. 

Gcd — How  they  leprefen!:  the  MeiTuh — O.i  what 
fundamental  truths  the^'  eltablll'h  the  Jcwilh  religion^- 
And  wi;h  what  circuinilances  they  defciibe  the  eitabhih- 
nent  of  die  New  Covenant,  and  the  calling  of  the 
Gentilts. 

The  prophets  defciibe  the  Irue  GoJy  by  titles  which 
they  give  to  him,  exclufive  of  all  other  beings.  To 
diiHnguiili  him  from  all  his  creatures,  and  to  aifeit  his 
infinite  fuperiority  over  them,  thofe  amaruenfcs  of 
heavenly  wifdom  call  him  ;  The  Creator  of  heaven 

AND  EARTH THE   FlRST  AND  THE   LaST THE 

KiN'G  OF  GLORY— THE  SeARCHER  LF  HEARTS THE 

Saviour  and  Rideemer — the  Judgf,  Lawgiver, 
AND  KisG — And,  THE  MoEF  HiGH. — Here  it  is  to 
be  obfcrved,  that  thefe  are  not  only  the  charaflersof  the 
true  God,  but  they  are  fuch  charadlers  as  are  peculiar 
to  him  ;  fuch  in  wiiich  no  creature  has  a  ihare.  For 
He  only  is  the  Mo.l  High  :  He  onj  knoweth  the  hearts 
of  the  children  of  men  :  He  only  blotteth  out  tranfgref- 
fion  fur  his  own  fake  :  He  only  is  the  Saviour  and 
the  Redeemer  of  Ifrael  ;  for  He  exprcfsiy  declares  theie 
is  none  elfe. — It  ought  alfo  to  be  remarked,  that  thefe 
charaders  are  fuch  as  principally  didinguifh  the  Creator 
from  the  creature  ;  and  that  it  would  be  very  difficult, 
either  to  invent,  or  to  meet  with  others  in  the  facred 
Records,  by  which  the  important  <li(Hn<5iion  could  be 
more  llrongly  maiked,  or  appear  with  greater  clearnefs. 
For  there  is  the  utmoiT-  reafon  to  conclude,  that  thefi 
are  the  titles  which  jKHOvA.r  chofe,  by  which  t3 
diiUnguifh  himfelf  from  all  other  beings. 

Yet  thefe  titles  are  all  given  to  Jefus  Chrifl-,  in  the 
New  Teltament-  Of  Him  it  is  faid,  '*  Thou,  Lord, 
*'  in  the  beginning,  hall  hid  the  fcundation  cf  the  earth, 
**  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy  hands."  He 
is  called,  repeatedly,  "  The  Firft  and  the  Laft.'*  He 
exprefsly  claims  the  prerogative,  of  *'  fearching  th* 
**  reins  and  the  heart."  He  is  called  by  Zacharias, 
"  the  Higheft,"  or  the  Mull  High  j  before  whofe  hzi 


5£CT.  IV.  193  CUAt\   ii, 

John  the  Bapiifl  went.  He  is  the  "  King  of  kings, 
*•  and  tiie  I^oul  of  k.rds.'"'  Ke  is  •'  the  Saviour," 
and  he  is   *'  our  Judge." 

But  if  thefe  titles  btlong  to  Jefus  Chrift,  what  was  the 
reafon  that  the  jTOphcts  gave  them  to  the  God  of  Ifrac], 
as  peculiar  to  him,  and  incommunicable  ?  Did  net  thofe 
holy  niwH  forefee  that  they  would  be  appHed  to  a  mere 
creature  ;  who,  how  excellent  foever,  mutt  be  cor^fidtreJ 
as  infinitely  below  the  eternal  Gcd  ?  What,  is  there 
nothing  in  all  thofe  grand  characlers  and  fublime  defciip- 
tions  of  the  Deity,  contained  in  the  Old  Teltament,  bût 
what  is  equivocal,  and  was  to  be  applied  to  Jcfus,  a  n:tie 
creature,  as  well  as  u  the  iniinite  Jehovah  !  Whè.i 
the  Holy  Spirit  infcrij.s  us,  in  the  ancient  oracles,  ihut 
the  Great,  the  Tiue,  the  Eternal  God-,  pciTciTcs  theie 
characflcrs  as  his  own  peculiar  ;  .vhat  can  we  ihir.k»  bLt 
that  the  Spirit  of  infpiraiion  cither  did  not  Jonjte  the 
glory  of  Jefus  Chriit,  who  was  to  bear  thefe  Divine  titles  ; 
or,  if  he  forcfaw  it,  that  he  intended  to  betray  us  into  an 
«rror,  which  confcuinds  the  creature  with  the  Creator  ? 

Thcfc  horrid  fufplcions  will  be  increafed,  if  we  con- 
Cder  the  charaders  of  the  MeJlJ}.  If  He  who  infpired 
the  piophets  did  not  forefee  v. hat  would  come  to  pafs, 
after  the  appearance  of  the  Meihah  ;  what  the  effedts  of 
his  dodrine  would  be  ;  how  it  would  be  condemned  of 
impiety,  by  the  Jews  ;  how  they  would  profccute  Jefus 
to  death,  under  a  charge  of  blafphemy,  for  claiming  an 
equality  with  God  ;  and  that  his  difcipies  would  maki 
him  the  objcd  of  their  woifhip  ; — if,  I  lay,  He  by  whofe 
infpiration  the  prophets  wrot^  andfpcjke,  did  not  forefte 
thefe  things,  he  could  not  be  the  Spirit  of  Him  who  is 
omnifcient.  And  if  he  did  forefee  them,  we  haV;: 
reafon  to  wonder,  and  it  is  hard  to  forbear  complainiivg, 
that,  inftead  of  taking  projKr  precautions  to  prevent 
the  errors  and  idolatry  which  he  foicfaw,  he  took  the 
molt  dlreciii'ay  to  give  birth  and  encouragement  to  them. 
For  what  elfe  could  he  intend  by  calling  the  Meffiah, 
*'  God  with  us  j  the  mighty  God  ;  JEHOVAH 


s  ce  T.    IV.  J  ^  l  CHAF.   I, 

"  OUR  RîGHTL0L'SN'^-S3  ;  1  il  L  OoD  AND  SaVIO'JR. 
♦'OF  THe  WHOLE  EARTH;  THE  LORD  THAT 
*'    SHOULD    SUDOiNLY    COME    TO     HIS    TKMPLK  ?'* 

*  But  thou;;h  the  Mefiîah  is  called,  "  God  witli  us." 

*  and,    «'  Jehovah   our    rightcoufaers  ;"  yet    he  is  not 

*  calkd  God,  abfolutely.     BcfiJes,  th!.Te  t\vo  characlers 

*  only    fignify,    that    God,    by  the   MeiTiah,    would  bî 

*  with  men,  fo  as  to  grant  them  the  fj)ecirt]  marks  of  his 

*  favour  ;  and  that,   by  him,  he  wouhl  j-iTiiTy  and  fave 

*  them.' — But  we  do  not  liere  argue  from  the  force  of 
the  expreflions,  but  from  th>;  ivijdom  and  the  dej^n  of 
the  Holy  Spiiit  who  ufed  them.  Though  it  were  not 
the  Spirit  of  God,  buta  man  of  common  prudence  and 
piety,  who  aded  on  this  occaGon  ;  we  cannot  imagine, 
if  he  forefaw  that  men  would  fall  into  fucii  a  miHake  as 
to  commit  idolatry,  by  treating  a  mere  creature  as  if  he 
were  the  true  God,  that  he  would  ever  think  of  drfcrlb- 
ipg  Jefus  Chriit  by  fuch  charatTters  as  thofe  before  us- 
If  our  adverfarics  could  put  themfclvcs  in  the  place  of 
the  prophets,  and  were,  by  Jehovah's  order,  to  form  an 
anticipated  model  of  the  Chriilian  rcli'^ion  ;  they  would 
take  p-\rticular  care  not  to  defcribe  the  expeded  MefTiah 
after  tliis  manner. 

*  It  is  not  Co  furprifing,  perhaps  they  miy  fay,    that 

*  the  prophets  fhould  fpeak  thus   of  a  man,   to  whora 

*  they  knew  God  v^/ould  communicate  his  name  and 

*  glorj'.'— But  if  that  had  been  the  reafon  of  their  conducf-, 
it  is  unaccountably  Grange,  that  they  fiiould  fo  frequently 
inculcate  the  following  truth?,  as  tl^e  fundamental  prin- 
e'pfcs  of  their  religion.  "  The  gods  that  n-iade  not  the 
*•  heaven?,  (hall  periili  from  the  eartlil^-I  will  not  gi^'C 
*•  my  glory  to  another — Thou  lliAlt  worfhip  tlie  Lord 
*'  thy  God,  and  him  only  (halt  thou  ferve — He  that 
*'  f^yearcîh  on  the  earth,  fliail  fv/ear  by  the  God  of  truth  " 
Truths  tîicfe,  efkntial  to  the  Jewilh  religion,  and  qv.ite 
inconfiiknt  with  the  idea  of  a  fubordinate  and  dependent 
God. 


6ICT.   lY.  192  CHAT.   I. 

The  truth  of  the  propofition  we  here  endeavour. to 
confiim,  will  be  fhll  n.ore  evident  if  ve  confider,  JViib 
Kx-'Lat  c'lrcumjlances  the  prophets  defcribe  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles  and  the  eftablifhment  cf  the  New  Covenant, 
ly  J^fus  Chrifl.  I'hefe  grand  events  are  defcribed  by 
tlic  following  charafteriQics.  An  umverfal  end  exuberant 
'ijy,  '^  Be  )e  glad  and  rejoice  for  ever  in  that  which  I 
»'  create  :  for  bthold  I  create  Jerufalem  a  rejoicing  and 
**  her  people  a  joy — Sing,  O  heavens,  and  be  joyful,  O 
*'  earth,  and  beak  forth  into  fmging,  O  mountains  1" 
And,  as  if  inanimate  creatures  v.-ere  faddenly  to  poflefs 
the  powers  of  reafon,  hi  order  to  fhare  in  the  pleafure 
Lnd  praife,  the  prophets  declare,  that  the  iHes  and  tl\e 
fca,  the  earth  and  the  mountains,  the  forefls  and  the 
cefarts,  fliall  (houi  for  joy. — Gcd'*s  dii-eUi  .g  among  men. 
*•  Sing  and  rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion  !  for  lo,  I 
*'  come,  and  I  will  dwell  in  the  midfl  of  thee,  faith  the 
'*  L0R.D.  Behold  YOUR  God  will  come — He  will  come 
*'  and  fdve  you.  Then  the  eyes  of  the  blind  fhall  be 
«*  opened,  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  fhall  be  unfloppcd. 
*•  Then  fhall  the  lame  man  leap  as  an  hart,  and  the 
<'  tongue  of  the  dumb  fhall  fmg.'^ — The  exaltatkn  of  God. 
**  The  Lord  alone  fhall  be  exalted  in  that  day." — 
The  deJîruSion  of  idols.  "  The  gods,  that  made  not 
•'  the  heavens,  fhall  perifh — The  idols  he  fhall  utterly 
"  i-bolifli — From  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanfe  you. 

If  the  Spirit,  by  whom  the  prophets  uttered  and 
penned  their  predictions,  forefaw  things  as  they  were  to 
come  to  pafs  ;  then  he  knew  very  well,  that  he  defcribed 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  eftablifhnient  of  the 
New  Covenant,  in  fjch  a  manner  as  would  never  be 
■verified — He  knevv^,  that  the  gofpel,  while  it  deftroyed 
one  fpecies  of  idolatry,  would  introduce  another  m.cre 
dangerous.  For  if  we  compare  the  Chrifhan  idolatry, 
which  makes  an  idol  cf  Jefus  Chrifl,  by  fetiing  him  on 
ihe  throne  of  the  Supreme  Being,  with  the  idolatry  of 
the  Heathens;  we  Ihall  find  that  the  latter  has  the- 
advantagc:  of  being  the  kfs  dangerous^  in  feveral  refpefls. 


SECT.  IV.  193  eii-\r.  u 

The  Pdgan  idolatry  was  grofi^y  n!>Jurd,  and  unvoril;/ 
of  uncieilianding  peiibns  ;  but  the  Chridian  idolatry  n 
fp-r'Uud!  and  much  more-  plajH'olc.  The  former  fprarg  froi.» 
9n  abufe  of  natural  light;  the  latter  from  the  moft  iiatur,.l 
tifc  we  CdD  make  of  written  Revelation.  For  what  \xi'z 
more  nataral,  than  to  undctiland  its  expreiucns  in  th^ir 
common  and  well-known  fi^nification  ?  The  r.:g;i.j 
idolatry  was  repeatedly  and  peremptoi  il  y  yc-rZ'à/^fw,  by 
the  Holy  GliOll,  from  age  to  age  j  forbidden  under  the 
molt  awful  penalties,  and  in  the  mofi:  alarming  way, 
both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Teflament  ;  whereas  the 
Chriilian  idolatry  is  a  mifcliicf  which  the  Sjnrit  c: 
prophecy  either  did  not  nl  oil  forcjecy  or,  forcfeting, 
ufed  no  means  to  prevent  ;  but  ratiier,  by  various  forms  of 
expreilion,  to  encourage  and  authorize.  The  former 
did  not  run  fo  high,  as  to  equal  thtir  fubordinaie 
divinities  with  Jupiter,  their  fupreme  god  ;  but  the 
litter  confids  in  treating  Jefus,  a  mere  creature,  as  the 
Moft  High.  Though  the  Heathens  worfliipped  lèverai 
gods,  yet  they  did  not  confider  tliem  as  pofTefled  of 
infinite  perfei5tion  ;  whereas  ChnJIiaus  believe  it  of  Jefus 
ChriiL  God's  jealoufy  alfo  is  fooner  provoked,  by 
inverting  a  very  excellent  creature  with  his  avcribuics 
and  glory,  than  by  transferring  his  Divine  honours  to  one 
that  is  mean  and  bafe;  becaufe  the  confecpiences  aie 
more  dangerous  to  the  intereîl  of  men  and  ilie  glory  of 
God.  I'he  Chr'ijlian  idolatry,  therefore,  being' a  more 
plaufible  evil,  is  more  pernicious,  than  that  of  the 
Heathfns. 

Kither,  then,  the  Spirit  who  infpired  the  projihets, 
did  not  forefee  thii^gs  as  they  v/ere  to  be  ;  or  he  knew 
that  the  ca'ling  of  the  Gentiles  would  not  be  fignalized 
î)y  the  deflruelion  of  idols  :  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  a 
njore  abfard  and  kfs  dangerous  idolatry,  would  give  va/ 
to  one  more  refined  and  more  deilru^fiive,  that  wouij 
foon  overfpread  the  vvforld — that  the  defire  of  the  nations, 
would  become  the  idol  of  the  people  ;  and  that  the  vt:  y 
name,  which  v;as  to  be  given  amorg  men,  and  bv  which 
R 


*=LC T.  i■'v^  ig4.  •  chap  i. 

rhey  were  to  be  farcJ,  would  become,  for  many  age» 
and  over  all  the  earth,  a  name  of  blafphemy. — CJonlc- 
quently,  God  has  been  fo  far  from  being  exalted,  under 
the  new  difpenfation,  by  the  abafen^nt  of  men  ;  that,  at 
its  commencement,  he  himftlf  bcg.in  wht  abafed^  by  the 
exaltation  of  the  man  Jclus  :  bccanle  the  exaltation  of 
Chi  id  occafioned  the  apodles  to  compare  him  U'ith  God, 
and  boldly  to  afcribe  to  him  an  equality  with  God,  by 
invefling  him  with  all  the  prerogaftftes  and  titles  of  tiic 
Great  Supreme.  The  prophets,  therefore,  had  no  great 
reafon  to  rtjoiee,  in  the  profped  of  the  gofpel  and  its 
reception  in  the  world  ;  fiuce,  by  its  mofl  natural 
imprefTions,  it  betrays  men  into  idolatry. — To  which  I 
may  add,  were  the  fertiment  of  our  adveifaries  true, 
God  would  be  much  leisprefent  in  the  ChriO.ian  church, 
than  he  was  in  the  ancient  findluary  :  for  he  was  there 
in  the  cloud  of  glory  over- fhado  wing  the  mercy-feat,  in  a 
very  illuifrious  manner  ;  but  our  opponents  will  not 
allow  Jefjs  Chrld  to  be  any  more  than  a  man.  The 
Spirit  of  infpiration,  therefore,  înliead  of  making  "  God*s 
*'  dwelling  with  men,"  one  of  the  chara^terillics  of 
gofpel-tiines,  would  have  fpoken  more  agreeably  to  fa(5l 
if  he  had  faid  ;  Under  the  Ne'.v  Covenant,  God  ftiall 
not  vouchfafc  the  illuRrious  tokens  of  his  intimate 
prefence,  to  fo  great  a  degree,  as  he  did  to  the  ancient 
IfraeliMlh  church. 

Thus  the  charaders  of  the  true  God,  which  are  drawn 
by  the  ancient  prophets  ;  the  chara(5lers  of  the  Mefliahj 
recorded  in  the  Old  Teftament  ;  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Jewifli  worfliip  ;  and  the  circumftances 
which  were  to  attend  the  eÔablifhment  of  the  New 
Covenant  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  all  confpire  to 
fhew.  That  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  either  did  not  foretel 
events,  as  they  were  to  come  to  pafs  j  or  that  the  fyflem 
of  our  opponents  is  falfe. 


5  EC  T.   ÏV*  195  CHAP.  iL 


.CHAPTER     IL 

'jf  Jksus  Christ  be  not  of  the  fame  elTcncc  v/ith  his  Father, 
cither  the  Apoflles  dij  not  utiderflanJ  the  Prophets,  or  ihey 
defigned  to  betray  us  into  error. 

y\S  ihe  hypothefis  of  thofe  who  ccnfider 
Jefus  Chrid  as  a  mere  creature,  ca(h  a  foul  reHedion 
*on  the  predidions  of  tlie  ancient  prophets  ;  fo,  by 
.unavoidabje  confequence,  it  obliges  us  to  conclude, 
That  though  the  aportles  made  the  Old  Tf (lament  the 
■fouiidadoii  uf  their  whole  do(^trine,  by  coniUntly  appcal- 
inj;  to  it  ;  and  thougii  they  received  the  Holy  GhoR 
.\^'iiore  province  it  was  to  lead  them  into  the  true  fenfe  of 
it;  ye»-,  afler  all,  they  did  not  undcrftand  it.  The 
jtruth  0Ï  this  piopoûiion  we  (hall  endeavour  to  prove  in 
the  toliowiog  paragraphs  ;  by  confidering  a  few  of  thofe 
|iaif-iges  in  the  Old  IXtament,  which  the  apoitles  apply 
to  Jefus  Chri(t  in  the  New. 

'I'he  eloquent  Ifaiah  fays,  **  The  ?oice  of  him  that 
^*  crieth  in  the  wildernefs,   Prepare  ye  thk  way  of 

**  JEHOVAH,     MAKE    STRAIGHT   IN    THE    DKSART    A 

•*  HIGH-WAY  FOR  OUR  GOD  "  Zachjrias,  fJled  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  applying  this  oracle  to  his  infant 
-fon,  cites  and  expounds  it  thus:  *'  And  thou,  child, 
•*'  fhalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest:  for 
•*  thou  fhalt  go  before  the  i'jiZt  of  the  Lord  to  prepare 
**  his  ways." — In  both  thefe  oracles,  it  is  evident,  thtft 
exalted  chara<5]:ers,  Jehovah,  our  God,  the  High  est, 
and  the  Lord,  are  applied  to  the  fame  glorious  Perfon. 
And  it  is  equally  certain,  from  the  con  liant  application 
.of  them  by  the  facred  writers,  that  they  are  peculiar  to 
-God.  Confequently,  if  they  belong  to  Jefus  Chrifl,  he 
mud  be  a  Divine  Peifon,  of  the  fame  eifencc  with  h-4 
.FH;her,  and  the  Moil  J-ligh. 


M.CT.   IV.  196  CHAi\   n. 

That  all  theft;  ?.(iorable  niîTnes  really  belong  to  our 
JLcrd,  a];pears  from  thtir  being  applied  to  him  by  ihe 
i.oerring  Spirit.  For  he,  before  whofe  face  John  the 
Baptill  was  to  go,  is  Jtfjs  ChrilL  It  mull  be  either 
ile,  or  God  the  Faihei.  Not  ihe  Faihcr;  for  cither 
ihicfe  words,  "  i'hou  (halt  go  before  the  face  of  the 
'•  Lord,"  are  to  be  under  flood  in  a  prcpcr  fenfe  ;  in 
fuch  a  manner  as  the  Lord  was  to  ccme  properly  to 
jr.en  ;  agreeable  to  that  faying,  "  Your  God  will  come 
*•  — and  fave  you  :'*  or  they  are  to  be  taken^^~M/-rt// Wj  ; 
Hiid  only  iignify,  that  God  would  viHt  mankind  in  an 
extraordinary  way,  either  in  juftice,  or  in  mercy  ;  and 
that  John  fiiouUi  be  inlh-umental  in  preparing  the  way  to 
Divme  mercy,  by  bringing  them  to  repentance.  If  the 
j'-ji-mcr^  the  oiacle  cannot  agree  to  God  the  Father  ;  for 
-Me  did  not  come  properly  to  men.  if  the  latter,  Joha 
liid  not  walk  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  ;  except  ift 
liv;  fame  fenfe  as  Noah,  who  was  a  preacher  of  righteouf*- 
i.jfs,  and  denounced  the  judgments  of  God  on  a  finftâ 
î^cneration  :  or  as  Mofes,  who  fpuke  to  Pharaoh  that 
lie  ftiould  let  the  people  go;  and  to  the  Uraelites, 
prjrfuading  them  to  believe  what  was  revealed  to  him  $ 
ti.us  preparing  the  way  to  God's  mercy,  in  the  redemp- 
lioii  ot  ifrael,  and  to  his  jufiice,  in  the  punifliment  of 
his  cncHiies.  But  if  fo,  we  mult  feek  the  accomphfhment 
cf  the  prediclion,  not  in  John,  but  in  Chrift.  For  if 
the  communication  of  Divine  benefits  be  intended,  by 
God's  coniiri<f  to  his  people  ;  he  came  the  moll 
remarkably  when  he  baptized  the  apofiles  with  the 
Holy  Ghort  and  with  fire,  and  when,  by  their  miniltry, 
he  converted  the  nations  ;  for  then  did  his  "  law  go 
*•  forth  from  Zion,  and  his  word  from  Jerufalem."  If 
the  inHiding  of  judgments  be  meant;  then  God  came, 
in  t^e  mod  lignai  and  teirible  manner,  when  he  fent 
the  Roman  legions  to  deltroy  the  unbelieving  Jews,  wilh 
their  city  and  temple.  But  then  it  was  not  John,  but 
Chi  ill,  who  principally  prepared  the  way,  in  both  thefe 
iJp-^.Ls.     For  lie  prepa.red  the  way  to  divine  mercy. 


.SECT.   IV 


197 


CHAP,    fi. 


hy  his  preaching  and  miracles,  his  futferings  and  death. 
He  revealed  the  pardoning  love  of  God,  and  confirmed 
,-the  everlailing  covenant.  The  miniftry  of  John  was  of 
fhort  duration,  and  the  preaching  of  the  apoltles  produced 
-much  greater  effecls  than  his.  To  fuppofe,  however, 
that  JefusChrift,  not  John  the  Baptill,  was  the  forerunner 
-defcribed  by  the  prophet,  is  abflird  to  the  laft  degree  ; 
-yet  fuch  is  the  confequence,  if  the  parage  be  interpreted 
,in  a  figurative  fenfe. 

If,  then,  this  oracle  was  not  ïiilfillcd  by  the  coming 
/>f  the  Father,  it  raufl  have  received  its  accomplifhmen: 
in  the  appearance  of  his  Son.  In  the  language  of  the 
^prophets,  therefore,  Jefus  Chri(t  bears  thofe  venerable, 
ihofe  truly  Divine  names,  Jehovah  ;  our  God  ;  tmp> 
•Highest  ;  and,  the  Lord  ;  for  fuch  are  the  characters 
;©f  Him  before  whofe.face  John  the  Baptift  went.  He 
♦isj   confequently,   the  true  God. 

The  next  ancient  oracle  that  I  fhall  confider,  is  that 

/which  is  quoted  in  the  eplltle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  where 

V.  is  produced  to  (hew,  v;hat  an  immenfe  difference  there 

•is,  between  Jefus  Chrill  and  the  angels.    *'  Thou,  Lord, 

•'  in  the  beginning,  had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth, 

*'  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine  hands.    They 

■"  fhall  perifh,  but  thou  remained;  ;   and  they  all   fhall 

*'  wax  old,  as  doth  a  garment;  and  as  a  vefture  fhalt 

>'  thou  fold  them  up,  and  they  fliall  be  changed  :  but 

•*'  Thou  art  the  fame,  ^nd  tl:y  years  Hiall  not  fail." — 

Thefe  words  were  undoubtedly  fp-sLen,  by  the  pfalmirt, 

tjof  the  true  God',  the. prophets  having  fo  often  informed 

VâS,  that  he  only  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Befides, 

jhe  preceding. words  cannot  be   underftood  of  any  bat 

Jehovah.      Either,  then,  the   infpired  writer  of  the 

cpilHe  to  the  Hebrews,  did  not  underftand  the  paiTage 

'he  produced;  or  he  knew  that  the  immutable,  the  eternal 

/God  v/as  defcribed  by  it  ;    foi   the  fublime  charaiflers 

^contained  in  it  are  fo  peculiar  to  him,  that  there  is  no 

jinftance  of  the  prophets  applying  thtm  to  any  other.  So 

'lat.when  the  infpired  author  applies  them  to  JefusChriih 


ore  T.  IV.  198  «CHAP.  n. 

he  nnifl  eitl^er  confider  him  as  of  the  fame  «flence  with 
the  Father  ;  or  elfe  he  (peaks  againfl  his  confcience,  to 
advance  his  Mafler's  honour,  and  betrays  the  interefls 
of  God's  glory. 

To  fay,  with  the  Socinians,  *  That  he  does  not  apply 

*  thefe  words  to  the  great  Redeemer  ;  but  that,  digrefling 

*  from   his  former  fubjc6t,  he  makes  a  fhort  apo(irophe 

*  to  God  the  Father  ;'  is  to  declare,  not  the  meaning 
of  the  text,  but  what  they  deflre  it  fhould  be.  Such 
?.n  apodrophe  would  be  very  aukwardly  introduced  here. 
For  it  is  not  the  defign  of  the  facred  writer,  in  this  place, 
to  affert  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  The  Hebrews, 
to  whom  he  wrote,  had  no  doubt  of  that  :  their  minds 
were  filled  with  ideas  of  his  dominion  and  grandeur. 
Nor  does  he  compare  the  Father  with  the  Son  ;  but  the 
Son  with  the  angels.  The  Hebrews  entertained  the 
hjgheft  opinion  of  that  Heveiation  with  which  MofcR 
ar.d  the  prophets  were  honoured.  The  infallible  author 
♦akes  occafion,  therefore,  to  prefer  the  New  Revelation 
to  the  Old  ;  reprefenting  the  /an^'r  as  communicated  by 
the  prophets,  who  were  only  fervarAs  in  the  houfe  of 
God  ;  but  Û\q  former  as  made  by  the  Son,  who  is  Lord 
of  the  houfe.      See  Heb.  i.  i  —  3. 

But  becaufe  it  might  be  objected,  That  the  law  was 
given  by  the  minidration  of  angels  ;  he  takes  occa- 
fjon  to  fhew  the  vail  fuperiority  of  Jefus  Chrift,  in 
comparifon  with  thofe  noble  intelligences.  He  allows, 
indeed,  that  they  bear  the  honourable  charader,  **  Mi- 
nifters  of  God."  As  it  is  written,  *'  He  maketh  his 
*'  angels  fpirits,  and  his  minifters  a  flame  of  fire."  Biit 
then  he  fignifies,  that  the  Son  partakes  of  his  Father^ 
authority  and  Godhead.  He  participates  of  his  authority. 
This  he  proves  by  thofe  words  of  the  pfalmift  :  "  Thv 
"  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever  :  a  fceptre  of 
"  righteoufnefs  is  the  fceptre  of  thy  kingdom.  Thou 
'«  haft  loved  righteoufnefs  and  hated  iniquity  :  therefore 
"  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil 
•"  of  gladnefs  above  thy  fellows.''    Here  we  behold  our 


SECT.  IV.  199  eiîAP.  lî. 

Lord,  as  Mediator,  receiving  the  kingdom  from  his 
Pather.  But  becaufe  he  partakes  witli  hi'n  in  the  glories 
of  the  Godhead,  or  in  the  eficntial  peifec\ions  of  the 
Supreme  Being  ;  he  afterwards  applies  to  Jefus  fuch 
oracles  as  equal  him  with  the  Father,  and  manifellly 
prove  him  to  be  the  Eternal  God.  For  he  adds,  wiih- 
out  the  leafl  intimation  that  he  is  fpeaking  of  a  different 
perfon  ;  *'  And  thou,  Lord,  in  the  bej^innipg,  haft  laid 
**  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are 
*'  the  works  of  thine  hands  They  Oiall  pcrifh,  but 
'•  Thou  remainefl — Thou  art  the  fimc,  ai:d  thy  years 
"  fhall  not  fail  "  Which  di({ln<^ion,  between'  the 
authority  he  received,  and  his  efl'ential  dominion,  ie 
contained  in  a  preceding  verfe  :  "Whom  he  hath 
•'  appointed  heir  of  all  things — By  whom  alfo  he  made 
"  the  worlds." — Thcforwer  claufe  is  exprefTive  of  that 
oîconGmical  kingdom,  in  refpe^!^  of  which  it  is  faiJ  ; 
**  Thou  haft  loved  rightecHifnefs  and  hated  iniquity.*' 
This  kingdom  he  received  from  the  Father.  The  /af.'er 
claufe  indicates  his  effential  glory,  his  eternal  power  and 
Godhead  ;  in  regard  to  which  this  oracle  is  applied  to 
him  :  *'  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  had  laid  the 
*'  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the 
*•  woîks  of  thine  hands."  This  is  that  participation  of 
the  Godhead,  in  reference  to  which  Jefus  fays  ;  ♦*  I  am 
*'  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me." — Hence  it 
appears,  that  the  fuppofed  apoflrophe,  if  admitted,  would 
be  of  little  fervice  to  the  caufe  we  oppofe.  For  though 
k  might  ferve  to  elude  the  force  of  thefe  words,  **  Thou, 
**  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  hafl  laid  the  foundation  of 
**  the  earth" — yet  our  adverfaries  could  not  defend 
themfelves  by  it  againfl:  the  evidence  of  thefe  *'  By 
**  whom  alfo  he  made  the  worlds  ;"  it  being  evident, 
that  he  who  made  the  worlds,  may  well  be  confidered 
as  having  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  formed 
the  heavens. 

Again  :  Thefe  words,  "  Thou  remained — Thou  art 
<*  the  fame — Thy  years  (hall  not  fail  j"  are,    even  in 


-SECT.   IV.  200  CHAP.  M, 

-the  judgment  of  our  opponents,  to  be  underftood  cf 
Jefus  Chriit.  Nor  could  they,  with  the  lead  Oiadow 
of  reafon,  deny  it  ;  becaufe  the  terms  are  fy  non  y  mous 
with  thofe  which  precede,  and  are  inconteitably  applied 
to  him.  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."  — 
The  following  exprefiions,  "As  a  veilure  fiialt  thou 
•'  fold  them  up,  and  they  (hall  be  changed,'* — they  alfo 
underdand,  as  relating  to  Jefus  Chrift  ;  as  expreflive  of 
ihe  renovation  of  all  things  by  the  Son  of  God,  at  the 
-lad  day.  But  then  they  violently  feparate  thefe  word« 
from  thofe  which  immediately  go  before,  and  with  which 
.they  are  clofely  .conne(5led.  They  would  perfuade  us, 
«ontrary  to  all  the  rules  of  language  ;  contrary  to  the 
natural  fignification  of  the  words,  anxi  fcope  of  the 
-cifcourfe  ;  an<i  contrary  to  conimon  fenfe  ;  that  there 
are  tiL'o  perfons  fpoken  of — That  He,  of  whom  it  is  faid, 
*'  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning,  hafl  laid  the  foundation 
**  of  the  earth  ;"  is  not  the  fame  with  Him,  of  whom 
it  is  faid  immediately  after,  "  Thou  remained — Thou 
•<  fnalt  fold  them  up."  They  fomeiimes  declare,  that 
they  will  hearken  to  nothing  but  thpir  own  reafon.  when 
ihey  difpute  with  us  ;  but  Jiere  wc  need  nothing  but  our 
«wn  eyesf  to  difpute  with  them. 

The  next  oracle  we  ihall  confider,  U  that  of  Ifaiah  ; 
which  is  applied  to  Jefus  Chrift,  by  the  evangelid  John. 
•'  But  though  he  had  done  fo  many  miracles  before  them, 
**  yet  they  believed  not  on  him — Efaias  faid  again,  He 
*♦  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  zr.d  hardened  their  heart,  that 
**  they  iliould  not  fee  with  their  eyes,  nor  underdand 
■*'  v/ith  their  heart,  and  be  coaverted,  and  I  diould  heai 
•'  them.  Thefe  things  faid  Efaias,  when  he  faw  hi-s 
*'  glory,  and  fpake  of  him." — This  paflage  prefents 
us  with  an  irrefragable  argument  for  the  Divinity  of  our 
I^ord  Jefus  Chrilt.  That  the  evangelili:  applies  to  Jefus 
that  Iplendid  appearance  of  Divine  glory,  mentioned  by 
Ifaiah  ;  and  that  it  is  the  glory  of  JtHOVAH,  the  God 
cf  llrael,  which  he  defcribes  ;  cannot,  one  woj'.d  think, 
•admit  x>i  .a  doi;bt.     Or,   if  ^ny  doubt  fliould  ariûe 


S.ECT.  IV,  50I  CHAP.  lU 

concerrjing  the  latter,  we  need  only  to  perufe  the  hiftory 
of  that  remarkable  viflon,  as  it  itands  in  the  prophet» 
in  order  to  be  fully  fatisfied. 

That  it  is  the  giory  of  the  Supreme  Being  of  which 
the  prophet  fpeaks,  appears  from  the  feveral  pans  of  that 
defcription  which  he  gives  of  it.  The  majjily  of  none 
but  the  true  God  can  be  fo  great,  as  to  caufe  the  fcraphim 
to  vail  thrir  faces  btfore  it.  None  but  Him,  vvov:'d  ihofe 
princes  of  heaven  thus  addrefs,  and  thus  profoundly 
adore:  **  Holt,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  o? 
"  hosts!  The  whole  earth  is  full  of  his 
"  GLORY.*'  Nor  could  tiic  prefcncc  of  any  but  the  Moft 
High,  caafe  the  prophet  thus  to  exclaim  ;  **  Woe  is  mc  ! 
*'  for  I  am  undone  !  becaufe  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips 
**  -^for  mine  eyes  have  feen  the  King,  the  Lok» 
"  OF  hosts." — And  that  the  evangelill  applies  this 
oracle  to  Jefas  Chrill,  is  equally  evident.  For  it  is  of 
Him  that  he  fpeaks,  in  the  verfcs  preceding  ;  and  it  is 
of  Hiiii  that  he  continues  tofpeak,  in  theverftsfollowing: 
which  puts  it  beyond  all  rcafonable  doubt,  that  it  is  Him 
alfo  of  whom  the  eTangeiilt  {peaks,  uhen  he  fays; 
♦•  Thtfe  things  faid  Efctias,  when  he  faw  his  glory,  and 
'*  fpake  of  him." — From  all  wliich  arifes  this  argument. 
Ifaiah  faw  the  glory  of  the  Supreme  Being  But,  at 
the  [^mt  time  and  place,  he  faw  the  glory  of  Jefus  Chrifl* 
Therefore,  Jefus  Chrill  is  the  Supreme  Being. 

All  this  is  evident,  one  would  have  thought  ;  evident 
beyond  difpute.  But  what  cannot  fubtilty  do,  when 
rcfolved  to  cclipfe  the  brighteil  truths  : — It  aiTeas 
various  things,  which  are  ail  equally  uiiv/arrantable. 
For  inflance  :  Tt  endeavours  to  perfuade  us,  that  the 
pronoun  /j;w,  does  not  relate  to  Jefus  Chriit,  but  to  God 
the  Father.  It  refers  thefe  words  of  the  evangeli(i, 
*'  Thefe  things  faid  Efaias,  when  he  fav/  his  g?ory,  and 
*'  fpake  of  him  ;"  not  to  what  immsd'ijtcJy  precedes  ;  but 
to  another  citation  from  the  prophet,  at  fome  diilance; 
**  Who  hath  believed  our  report,  and  to  whom  is  the 
"  arm  of  the  Lord  revealed:"'  And  it  maintains,  that 


S::CT.   lY.  202  CHAP.  II. 

the  prophet,  in  defcribing  the  glory  of  GoJy  defcribed 
alfo  the  glory  of  Chrlfl  ;  becaufe  the  latter  is  contained 
in  the  former.  But  thcfe  fuppofitions  and  aflertions  are 
all  fo  wild  and  unnatural,  that  a  man  muft  be  blind  not 
to  fee  through  them  ;  and  exceedingly  fond  of  error,  not 
to  defpife  them. 

As  the  evangelid,  through  the  whole  Chapter,  treats 
of  Jefus  Chrili,  not  at  ail  of  God  the  Father  -,  what 
realon  has  any  one  to  believe,  that  thefe  words  mud 
relate  to  the  Father  ?  "  Thsfe  things  faid  Efaias,  when 
*'  he  faw  his  glory,  and  fpake  o^  him."  Who  does  not 
perceive,  and  what  but  a  predile<flion  for  an  unfcriptural 
hypothefis  can  prevent  a  man  from  acknowledging,  that 
the  lail:  claufe  of  the  fentence  is  to  be  underflood  of  the 
▼ery  fame  perfon  that  is  intended  in  the  immediately 
following  words?  "  Nevcrtheitfs,  among  the  chief  rulers 
**  alfo,  many  believed  on  him."  If  Jefus  be  meant  in 
tlie  latter^  why  not  in  the  fnrmer  verfe  ? — The  prophet 
fpake  of  the  true  OrQ^^,  on  every  occafion.  This  the 
evangelilt  knew  ;  of  thig  he  could  not  be  ignorant. 
Thefe  things  faid  F/nias,  '  when  he  fpake  of  God'— 
When  he  (pake  of  God  I  Why,  then,  he  mull  fay  them 
all  his  life  ;  fay  them  continually  ;  fay  them  in  every 
page  of  his  prophecies;  becaufe,  through  the  whole  courfe 
of  his  miniflry,  he  fpake  of  God  ;  proclaiming  his 
glories,  revealing  his  will,  and  aflerting  his  doniinion, — 
*  But  tliis,  they  fay,  is  a  parenthefis.*  How  does  that 
appear  ?  Have  they  nothing  to  do,  but  to  fuppofe,  cr 
adert,  without  proving?  Yet  if  it  were,  the  pronoun 
h'lm^  would  ftill  refer  to  Jefus  ChriR  ;  becaufe,  both  in 
the  foregoing  and  followin-g  verfes,  tlie  evangelift  fpeaks 
of  Chri(t,  and  of  him  only. 

Nor  is  there  the  leaft  fhadov/  of  reafon  for  any  t© 
confider  thefe  words,  "  Thele  things  faid  Efaias,  when 
^'  he  faw  his  glory,  and  fpake  of  him  ;"  as  ccnnefted 
Avith  thofe,  *'  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report,  arvd 
•*'  to  whom  is  the  arm  of  the  Lord  levealcd  ?"  For 
.with  what  propriety  could  it  be  faid;  that  Ifaiah  iw  tht 


gËCT.   IV.  2CJ3  CHAP.   If, 

glory  of  the  Lord,  in  a  Cliap'cer  whtre  he  beheld  and 
fpeaks  of  hardly  any  thing,  but  the  poverty  and  difgrace, 
the  forrows  and  futferings,  of  the  Lord  Melfiah  ?  in  a 
Chiipter  which  contains  verv  htile  befides  one  continued 
defcription  of  his  humiliation?  'I'hc  humiliation  of  Chrilt 
is  there  defcribed  by,  The  meanntfs  of  his  extradion  : 
*'  He  Hiall  grow  up,  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground'* — 
The  difgrace  which  attends  him  ;  "  We  hid  as  it  were 
**  our  faces  from  him" — The  affligions  he  endures  ; 
**  He  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  forrows" — 
His  meeknefs  and  patience;  **  He  is  brought  as  a  lamb 
**  to  the  flaughter,  and  as  a  (heep  dumb  before  her 
*•  (hearers,  fo  he  opened  not  his  mouth" — His  death  ; 
**  When  he  (hall  make  his  foul  an  offering  for  (In"— • 
And  the  circum(tances  attending  his  burial;  **  He  made 
**  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in  bis 
"  death." — It  is,  indeed,  faid,  •*  The  pleafure  of  the 
*'  Lord  (hall  profper  in  his  hand — He  (hall  prolong  hij 
**  days — He  (hall  divide  the  fpoil  with  the  (trong  ;"— 
but  thefe  promifes  lie  fo  concealed  among  the  many 
affecting  images  of  his  humiliation  and  complicated 
fufferings,  that  it  is  to  the  laft  degree  unreafonable,  t0 
call  this  a  vifion  oï  his  glory. 

Had  the  evangeli(l  thus  expreffed  hirafelf,  *  Thefe 

*  things  faid  Efaias,  when  he  fpake  oï  him  ;'  it  might 
have  been  fuppofed,  with  fome  little  appearance  of 
probabitity,  that  the  phrafe,  thefe  things  y  referred  to  the 
firft  palfage  cited  by  him  •,  **  Lord,  who  hath  believed 
*'  our  report  ?"  Yet  even  then  it  would  have  been 
much  more  natural  to  connect  it  with  the  immediately 
preceding  citation.  But  he  expreffes  himfelf  otherwife  ; 
*"  Thefe  things  faid  Efaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory, 
**  and  fpake  of  him."  Now  the  prophet  beheld  hia 
glory,  in  Ûïq  Jixth  Chapter,  not  in  \X\z  ffiy -third;  for 
in  the  latter,  he  fuv  very  little  befides  his  humiliation.    . 

Equally  unreafonable  is  it  to  fuppofe,  *  That  Ifaiah, 

*  in  beholding  the  glory  of  God,  faw  the  glory  of  Jefiu 
«  Chrifl  ;  becaufe  the  latter  is  contained  in  the  former.' 


eCCT.    i\'.  2^vj.  CHAP,   li» 

For  if  we  may  have  tecourfc  to  fuch  evaficns,  u-e  may 
deny  or  maintdn  any  thing,  jud  as  ue  plcafe.  Had 
that  been  the  meaning,  the  irfpired  wiiier  might  have 
applied  the  oracle  to  himfclf  and  his  biethren,  as  well 
as  to  I'.fus  Chiift:  I  ecauft  the  glory  cf  their  charaftcr  and 
OiTice,  as  the  children  of  Gcd  and  the  apoliks  of  the 
Lamb,  was  contained  in  the  gloryof  Jc;licvuh  and  derived 
from  it.'  According  to  this  iiiterpretation  he  might 
have  exprefied  himfelf  thus  ;    *  Thefe  things  faid  Eiaias, 

*  when  he  faw  our  glory,  and  fpake  of  «j.' — Say  not, 

*  This  would  have  been  a  profanation.'  For  if  that 
infinite  difparity  which  is  between  the  glory  of  Chrifl, 
and  the  giory  of  Jehovah,  do  not  prevent  what  was 
fpoken  only  ccncen.ing  the  glory  of  the  latter  from  being 
applied  to  that  of  the  fermer;  then  the  difference  between 
the  glory  of  Chriit,  and  the  glory  of  the  apoftles,  being 
finite,  cannot  hinder  an  oracle  which  defcribes  the  glory 
of  Chrift,  from  being  with  much  greater  propriety 
sppiied  to  them. — Again  :  The  glory  of  Chrifl,  if  he 
be  a  mere  creature,  cannot  be  the  fame  with  God's  ; 
nor  can  the  peculiar  glory  of  God,  fuch  as  Ifaiah 
defcribes,  be  the  fame  with  Jefus  Chrifl's.  Yoii  might, 
therefore,  with  much  more  truth  and  propriety  fay,  He 
tliat  fees  the  king's  gloiy,  beholds  the  glory  of  his 
nieancfl  fubjeél  ;  than  to  affirm,  with  our  adverfaries, 
That  Ifaiah,  by  feeing  God's  glory,  faw  the  glory  of 
Jefus  Chrift.  Becaufe,  in  the  former  cafe,  the  extent 
of  the  difparity  is  eafily  conceived  ;  but  in  the  lailer  it  19 
inconceivable  and  unbounded. 

Another  paflage  full  to  my  purpofe,  is  the  following» 
«*  When  he  bringeth  in  the  Firft  begotten  into  the 
*«  world  he  faith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
**  WORSHIP  HIM.'' — It  is  agreed,  on  both  (ides,  that 
tlie  facred  writer  applies  to  Jefus  Chriil  thofe  words  of 
the  pfalrnifl:,  *'  Vv'orfhip  him  all  ye  gods,"  or,  **  all  yc 
*«  angels;'  as  the  infpired  author  teaches  us  tounderftand 
the  original  word,  in  this  place.        ^'^ 


S2CT.  IV.  2C5  CKAP.   II. 

That  the  pfalniiil  fpcaks  cf  rhe  trae  GoJ,  when  h^^ 
fays»  "  Worfhip  him  all  ye  gods,  or  angels,"  appeals 
by  only  reading  the  pfalm.  Thus  it  b^^gins,  **  The 
••  Lord  reigneth,  let  the  earth  rejoice  ;  let  the  multitude 
**  of  iiles  be  glad  thereof."  But  why  fnould  the  earih 
and  the  iiles  exult  in  the  glory  of  this  dominion,  if  their 
Creator  be  not  the  fovereign  intended  i  Befides,  the 
great  nameJEHOVAH,  fo  often  applied  to  Him  whofe 
kingdom  and  fovereign  dominion  the  facred  penman 
delcribes,  and  accompanied  with  fo  many  charuvûers  of 
the  glory  of  the  Molt  High,  could  not  be  given  to  any 
ether  without  manifelt  impiety. — ^"  Clouds  and  darknels 
"  are  round  about  him  :  righteoufnefs  and  judgment  are 
•*  the  habitation  of  his  throne.  A  fire  goeth  bcfoie 
♦'  hira,  and  burneth  up  his  enemies  round  about.  His 
*•'  lightenings  enlightened  the  world  ;  the  earth  law  and 
*'  trembled."  Thefe,  it  muft  be  allowed,  are  the 
charafleritHcs  of  Hisprefence,  who  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth.  Thefe  are  defcriptions  of  His  awful 
glories,  who,  whenever  he  pleafcs,  can  fliake  the  pillars 
of  nature  ;  can  employ  thunder  and  fire,  and  all  the 
dreadful  artillery  of  heaven,  to  dedroy  rebellious  worms, 
and  to  render  his  Divine  majelly  and  fovereign  dominion 
more  confpicuous. — *^  The  hills  melted  like  wax,  at  the 
**  prcfencc  of  the  Lord  ;  at  the  prefence  of  the  Lord 
**  of  the  whole  earth."  Nothing  is  more  evideiit  than 
that,  '*  The  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,"  is  a  title  peculiar 
to  the  Eternal  Sovereign.  *'  Behold,  the  ark  of  the 
*'  covenant  oÙ/je  Lord  of  all  the  earthy  (hall  go  before  you 
*'  over  Jordan,"  fays  the  magnanimous  Jofhua.  "  Thefe 
*'  are  the  four  fpirits  of  the  heavens,  which  go  forth 
**  from  (landing  before  the  Lord  of  all  the  earth — And 
*'  I  will  confecrate  their  gain  to  Jehovah,  and  their 
**  fubflance  to  the  Lord  of  the  tvhole  earthy^  fay  the 
prophetic  feers. — The  manner  alfo  in  which  the  title  is 
given  him,  in  the  text  before  us,  is  no  lefs  remarkable 
than  the  title  itfelf.  Tor  the  Pfaimill,  deligning  to  raife 
Oiir  attention,  to  eicite  our  adminirtration,  and  to  fiii 
S 


SECT.   IV.  206  CHAP.  II. 

as  with  reverence  cf  that  Sublime  Being  of  whom  lie 
ipeaks,  redoubles  his  expreflîons  ;  and,  with  a  fingular 
emplidfis,  Tciys;  "The  hills  melted  like  wax,  at  the 

'*  PRESFNCE  OF  THE  LoRD  ;  AT  THE  PRESENCE  OP 

"  THE  Lord  of  the  whole  earth."  And  then  he 
adds,  "  The  iicavens  declare  his  righteoufiicfs,  and  all 
"  the  people  fee  his  glory."  But  whofc  righteoufnefs  is 
revealed  by  the  heavens,  whofe  glory  is  beheld  by  the 
people,  except  thofe  of  their  great  Creator  and  Preferver? 
"  — Confounded  be  all  they  tliat  ferve  graven  image?, 
*'  that  boall  themfclves  of  idols."  As  it  is  the  true  God 
who  is  oppofed  to  idols  ;  and  as  it  is  the  true  God  who 
is  glorified,  by  the  confuiion  of  idolaters  ;  fo  none  but 
He  can  be  intended  in  this  place. — "  Thou,  Lord,  art 
«•  high  above  all  the  earth  ;  thou  art  exalted  far  above 
**  all  gods."  If  thefe  words  do  not  expiefs  the  idea 
cf  the  true  God,  language  is  not  capable  of  doing  it  ; 
for  nothing  is  mere  evident,  than  that  He  only  is  to  b<; 
fupremely  exalted. 

If,  then,  each  of  tiiefe  characters  be  adapted  to  fliev/, 
that  the  true,  the  great,  the  infinite  God,  is  intended 
in  this  Pfalm  ;  certainly  fuch  a  colledion  of  them  muft 
leave  no  room  for  doubt.  Nay,  fuch  is  the  evidence» 
in  this  refpeâ:,  that  if  we  refufe  to  acknowledge  the 
Great  Supreme,  in  this  devout  and  very  fublime  ode; 
v/e  fliall  not  be  able,  with,certainiy,  to  find  his  charader, 
nor  to  behold  his  glory,  in  any  oracle,  or  in  any  part, 
of  the  Old  Teltament.  For  that  immenfely  glorious 
Being,  whofe  perfe<51icns  are  here  celebrated,  is  defcribed 
by  the  fame  chara^ers  which  are  given  to  the  true  God 
throughout  the  ancient  Scriptures  ;  and  efpecially  by  his 
jçreat  and  tenible  name,  Jehovah  :  a  name,  which  he 
appropriated  to  himfelf,  on  a  very  important  occafion— 
which  he  fignali/.ed  by  a  thoufand  miracles — which  is 
here  conr.e«rtcd  with  the  idea  of  univerfal  dominion,  and 
with  the  difpiays  of  his  glory  in  hcaren  and  earth.  So 
Uiat  if  it  were  any  other  than  the  true  God,  who  is 
defcribed   by   cbdraders  fo    eilduial    and  peculiar  to 


iÈCr,  IV.  207  CRAP.  II. 

Him  ;  no  exprefllons  could  be  ufed,  about  an  affair  of 
the  moft  folenm  importiince,  more  ambiguoas,  or  more 
deceitful. 

Is  it  not  then  furprifmg,  that  Socinr.s  fhor.ld  apply 
;ill  thefe  charaders  to  Jci'i:s  L'hiiR  ;  to  one  whom  he 
confideis,  as  a  mere  man  :  *  Since  it  is  evident,  fays 
«  he,  from  the  confcfTion  of  all  the  world,  that  in  this 

*  Plalm  there  is  a  propliecy  concerning  the  kingdom  of 

*  Jefus  Chrid  ;   why  might  not  Chiilt  (a  man  to  whom 

*  all  power  in   heaven  and  earth  was  given,  and  being 

*  confidered  as  entering  on  the  poflelliou  of  his  kingdom, 

*  prophetically  foretold  and  defcribed)  be  with  proptiety 
«  called,  Toe  Lord  of  ihe  nvhole  earth?'  Why,  bccaale 
lie  who  bears  that  divine  title  is  defcribed  by  fo  many  other 
charadcrs,  which  are  pt-culiar  to  the  true  God.  Bccaule 
He  who  is  the  fubjocl  uf  this  Ffalm,  is  alio  the  liibj.-ct 
of  that  which  immediately  precedes,  whofe glory  is  thus 
defciibed.  **  All  the  gods  of  the  nations  are  idols; 
*'  but  the  Lord  made  the  heavens.  Honour  and 
*'  majcHiy  are  before  liim;  flrength  and  beauty  are  in 
**  his  fan(^uary.  Give  unto  the  I^ord,  O  ye  kindreds 
•'  of  the  peo])le,  give  unto  the  Lord  glory  and  (Irength. 
*'  Give  unto  the  Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his  name  : 
*'  brmg  an  offering  and  come  into  his  courts.  O  worfhip 
**  the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holincfs  ;  fear  before  him 
•'  all  the  earth.  Say  among  the  Heathen,  that  th^ 
**  Lord  reigneth — Let  the  heavens  rejoice,  and  let  the 
•*  earth  be  giad  ;  let  the  fea  roar  and  the  fulnefs  thereof. 
"  Let  the  field  be  joyful,  and  all  that  is  therein  ;  then 
*'  fhallall  the  trees  of  the  wood  rejoice  before  the  Lord; 
**  for  he  Cometh,  for  he  cometh  to  judge  the  earth." — 
That  thefe  two  Pfalms  are  parallel,  is  very  evident.  For 
they  both  fpeak  of  God's  glory,  of  his  coming,  and  of 
bis  kingdom.  They  both  exalt  the  true  God  above  the 
divinities  of  the  Heathen.  They  both  require  mankind 
to  worfhip  the  Lord,  the  eternal  Jehovah,  as  having 
fupremc  dominion  over  all  creatures.     And  they  botU 

S  2 


oICT.   IV.  208  CKAF.   II. 

•rvite  inanima*£  creatures  to  rejoice  at  the  prcfence,  and 
■  n  the  government  of  God. 

It  is,  then,  of  the  true  God  thefe  words  were  fpoken, 
"  WorHiip  Him  all  ye  gods  ;"  or,  "  Let  ?.ll  the  angels 
*•  of  God  worfhip  Him.'"  But  it  was  concerning  Jesus 
Christ  that  the  high  command  was  given.  Of  this 
rH  infallible  author  afTures  us.  Of  this,  th.erefore,  v/c 
ought  by  no  means  to  doubt  :  nor  do  our  opponents 
îhenifelvcs  deny  it.  Let  them  draw  the  inference,  then, 
?.nd  acknowledge  with  us,  That  Jefus  Chrifl  is  the  true 
God,  and  is  defcribed  in  the  ancient  oracles  as  the 
i-îupreme  Being.  For  hence  we  learn,  that  they  who 
are  called  gods  ;  or,  to  adopt  their  own  language,  they 
who  are  gods  ly  oj/ice,  aie  here  exprefsly  commanded 
ro  worlhip  Jefus  Chrift,  as  God  ty  nature. 

Socinus  in  vain  endeavours  to  folve  the  difficulty, 
vvi^h  which  he  is  here  prefTed,  by  faying  ;   '  They  who 

•  worfhip  Chrifl,  worHiip  the  Supreme  God  ;  becaufe 
'  Jefus  reprefents  him  in  a  Gngular  manner,  and  in  a  very 

*  eminent  fenfe.'  For  the  queflion  is  not,  Wheihc»-, 
in  adoring  Jefus  Chri(t,  we  adore  the  true  God  ; 
but,  Whether  thefe  words,  "  Let  all  the  angels  of 
"  God  worfhip  him,"  were  not  fpoken  of  Jefus  Chri(K 

Should  any  one  maintain,  that  he  who  loves  his 
brother,  loves  God,  becaufe  he  loves  him  only  as 
bearing  the  image  of  his  Maker  ;  he  would  fay  nothing 
b'-itwhatis  warrantable.  But  were  heto  infer  from  thence, 
that  when  the  Divine  Lawgiver  fays,  *'  Thou  flialt  love 
"  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  he  fpeaks  of 
our  neighbour,  and  not  of  God  only  ;  his  conclufon 
would  be  very  extravagant.  So,  were  we  to  grant,  that 
he  who  worfhips  Chrill,  worrtiips,  in  fome  meafure,  the 
true  God  ;  yet  we  ihould  not  be  obliged  to  allow,  that 
he  who  requires  us  to  adore  God,  requires  us  by  the 
fame  command  to  adore  Jefus  Chrill  ^  there  being  no 
confequence  from  the  one  to  the  other. — Befides,  if  in 
adoring  Chrift,  we  worfliip  the  true  Godj    then  the 


SI:CT.  IV.  i09  CHAP.   I!, 

pafTage  under  confidcration  might  have  been  appKcd  to 
all  the  kings  of  the  earth.  For  thej^,  in  Tome  rerj)efls, 
bear  the  image  of  God  j  and  we  honour  them  as  God's 
vicegerents  here  below.  But  are  we  from  hence 
authorized  to  fay,  That  he  who  honours  kings,  honours 
God  himfelf  ?  If  we  be,  we  may  apply  to  them  the 
oracle  in  the  ninety  feventh  Pfalm,  as  it  is  applied  to 
Jefus  Chrift.  For  if  it  belong  to  Chrift,  though  it  b: 
meant  only  of  the  Supreme  Being,  becaufe  in  worfliipping 
the  former,  we  adore  the  latter  ;  nothing  hinders  us 
from  faying,  that  it  belongs  alfo  to  kings  ;  becaufe  in 
honouring  them,  we  honour  t!ie  Eternal  Sovereign, 
vvhofe  image  they  bear. 

But  the  queftion  is  not,  What  fubtilty  can  irvent,  in 
order  to  elude  the  force  of  this  argument;  but,  What 
is  the  natural  import  of  the  words,,  as  applied  in  the 
epiltle  to  the  Hebrews?  and.  Whether  any  can  be 
cxcufed  from  taking  them  in  the  fenfe  adopted  by  us  ? 
feeing,  on  the  one  hand,  they  were  fpoken  of  the  true 
God  ;  and,  on  the  other,  that  the  Infallible  Spirit  applies 
•them  to  Jefus  Chrift. 


«3 


m:ct.  IV,  CIO  CHAP,  in, 


CHAPTER     III, 


The apoftles  did  not  apply  tlie  ancient  oracles  to  Jesus  Christ» 
by  mere  Allufion,  of  Accomodation. 


V><LE  ARLY  to  difcern  the  importance  of  the 
argument,  which  is  drawn  from  that  application  of  the 
ancient  oracles  v/hich  the  apoflles  have  made  to 
Jefus  Chrift  ;  we  need  only  to  inquire,  Whether  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  when  fpeaking  by  the  prophets  in  the 
pafTages  jufl  confidered,  defigned  to  charaderize  Jefus 
Chrift.  For,  if  tliat  was  his  deHgn,  he  certainly 
intended  that  we  fliould  confider  him,  as  the  Lord  ; 
ovK  God  ;  the  Creator  of  heaven  ard  earth  ; 
Jehovah;  Jehovah  of  hosts;  and  the  Most 
High.  But  if  he  did  not  intend  to  reprefent  the 
Redeem.er  by  thefe  chara<flers  ;  if  they  were  defigned 
for  the  true  God,  in  diftindion  from  Jefus  Chrift  ;  then 
v/e  muft  look  upon  their  application  to  Jefus,  by  the 
apoflles,  only  as  an  accommodation  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures  to  prefent  events,  founded  on  fome  fort  of 
refemblance  between  the  one  and  the  other.  But 
though  fuch  accommodation  be  not  without  example, 
in  Divine  and  iiuman  language  ;  it  has  no  place  here,  as 
may  appear  from  the  following  confiderations. 

Some  of  thefe  paffages  inconteflibly  belong  to  Jefus 
Chrift,  by  the  intention  of  that  Spirit  who  infpired  the 
prophets  ;  as  has  been  already  proved.  Thefe,  there- 
fore, demonftrate,  that  Jefus  is  invefted  with  the 
peculiar  charaders  of  God's  glory,  by  the  intention  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft. — Nor  will  the  defign  of  the  apoflles, 
in  citing  and  applying  the  ancient  oracles  to  Jefus  Chrift, 
permit  us  to  confider  that  application  as  merely  by  way 
of  allufion,  or  accommodation.  For  their  defign  is, 
cither  to  prove  his  Divine  miffion,   or  to  cojîdçmn  the 


SECT.  ÏV.  211  CHAP.   Ilîk 

unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  to  remove  the  fcandal  of  h 
by  (hewing  that  it  was  foretold;  or  to  declare  his  infinite 
excellence,  and  fuperiority  over  all  creatures  ;  or  to 
perfuade  mankind  to  render  him  thofe  honours  which 
are  his  eternal  right,  by  (hewing  that  the  Holy  Spiiit 
requires  they  (hould  be  addrc(red  to  him. 

The  apo(tles  adduce  thefe  oracles  to  prove  the  Divine 
mijfion  of  Jefus  Chri(t.  On  this  account  Peter,  in  his 
■difcourfe  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jet  ufalem,  at  the  feaft  of 
Pentecoft,  cites  a  prophecy  from  Jotl.  **  And  it  (hall 
<*  come  to  pafs  in  the  lafl  days,  laiih  God,  I  will  pour 
*•  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  fle(h."  This  prediction  he 
afterwards  applies  to  Jefus  Chrifl  in  the  following  words. 
"  This  Jefus  hath  God  raifed  up,  whereof  we  all  arc 
"  witne(res.  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
**  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promifc 
"  of  the  Holy  Gholl,  he  hath  fhed  forth  this,  which  ye 
**  now  fee  and  hear." — Hence  I  infer,  that  the  apo(lles, 
defigning  to  prove  the  Divine  miilion  of  their  Mader 
from  the  ancient  prophecies,  mufl  have  loR  their  reafon 
if  they  did  not  fee,  that  they  defeated  their  own  inten- 
tion, by  applying  to  ChriO  fuch  oracles  as  exprefs  the 
peculiar  glory  of  the  Deity,  if  they  had  not  confidered 
Him  as  a  truly  Divine  Perfon  :  becaufe  they  could  not 
be  ignorant,  that  the  great  llumbling-block  of  the  Jews 
was,  *'  That  Jefus  had  made  himfelf  eqiial  with  God.'* 
Confeqaently,  a  fmall  degree  of  prudence  would  have 
been  fufficient  to  (hew  the  apoftles,  that  every  application 
of  ancient  prophecy  to  Jefus  Chrift,  which  was  in  the 
leaft  adapted  to  convey  an  idea  of  that  kind,  would  be  fo 
far  from  convincing  the  Jews  that  he  was  the  Mefliah, 
that  it  would  ftrengthen  their  prejudices  and  harden  their 
hearts  again  ft  him  ;  and  be  confidered  by  them  as  an 
additional  evidence,  that  he  was  an  ufiirper  of  the  glory 
of  God,  and  fufFered  death  on  the  crofs  as  the  juf-t 
reward  of  his  blafphemy.  Can  it  be  fuppofed,  then,  that 
the  apoftles,  who  Ipnged  for  the  falvation  of  their 
•brethren,    wQuld  lay  an  invincible  bar   before  them, 


SECT.  IV.  'It2  CHAP,  llh 

by  making  arbitrary  allufions  and  forced  accommoda* 
lions  ? 

Another  end  intended  by  the  apoftles,  in  applying 
the  prophecies  to  Jefus  ChiKt,  was,  To  condemn  tkc 
VTihelief  0Ï  \.\\t  Jews,  and  to  remove  the  fcandal  oi  it  ;  by 
fhewing,  that  thtir  infidelity  and  hardnefs  of  heart  were 
foretold  by  the  prophets.  For  this  puipole  the  evari- 
gelifl:  thus  intioduces  the  following  paflage  from  Ifaiah. 
•'  Therefore  they  could  not  believe,  becaufe  that  Efaias 
*'  faid  again  :  He  haih  blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened 
*'  their  heart;  that  they  fhculd  not  fee  with  their  eyes, 
*'  nor  underfland  with  thtir  heart,  and  be  converted 
*'  and  1  fhould  heal  them.  Thefe  things  faid  Efaias» 
<*  when  he  faw  his  glory,  and  fpake  of  him." — The 
reader  will  remember,  that  the  prophet  faw  the  glory 
of  the  true  God,  as  proved  already.  Now  a  defign  to 
Tnew,  that  the  unbelief  of  thofe  who  rejeded  the  MeiTiah 
bad  been  foretold,  required  the  apodles  to  produce  fuch 
oracles  as  really  and  properly  refj)e61ed  the  time  and 
perfon  of  their  MefTiah  ;  fuch  as  were  originally  intended 
to  be  applied  to  him,  and  had  been  fo  applied  by  common 
tradition.  So  far  were  they  from  being  obliged  to  make 
ttllufive  applications  that  were  unnatural,  or  accommoda- 
tions that  were  impious,  of  the  peculiar  chara<5bers  or 
Jehovah  ;  that  fo  to  have  done,  would  have  judified  the 
conduft  of  the  Jews,  and  rendered  their  unbelief  lawful. 

A  further  defign  of  the  apoftles,  in  making  fuch 
applications  to  their  Divine  Mafter,  was,  To  declare  his 
infinite  excellence  ;  to  ailert  his  fuperlorif^  and  dominion 
over  all  creatuies,  without  exception.  This  appears 
from  the  firft  chapter  of  the  epilUe  to  the  Hebrews. 
But  arbritary  allufions  and  accommodations,  are  by  no 
means  fuitable  to  this  defign.  For  with  what  propriety, 
truth,  or  honefty,  could  the  author  of  the  epidle  juft 
mentioned,  attempt  to  prove,  That  the  Old  Tellament 
fpcaks  greater  and  nobler  things  of  Jefus  ChrKK  than 
it  dots  of  angels  ;  by  paflages  in  which  the  Spirit  of 
tfti^uaiion  had  the  former  no  more  in  his  eye,  than  fee 


SECT.   IV.  213  CHAP.   Ill, 

had  the  latter?  If  it  were  a  bare  accommodation,  w« 
need  only  a  turn  of  thought  a  little  different  from  his, 
applying  to  an  angel  what  he  applies  to  Chrift  ;  and  we 
ftiall,  with  equal  reafon,  draw  conclulions  dirtdly 
oppûfite. 

Once  more  :  The  apoflles  dtfigned,  by  thefe  appli- 
cations, Topcifuade  mankind  to  render  thofc  humours  to 
their  Lord,  which  are  his  eternal  right;  by  fliewing 
that  the  Holy  Ghofl  requires  they  Ihould  be  addreiled 
to  him.  In  purfuance  of  this  intention,  they  cite  fuch 
pa/Tages  as  command  adoration  to  be  given  to  him  ;  and 
r.ich  as  declare  the  purpcfe  of  God  that  it  fliall  be  paid. 
Of  wliich  number  are  tlie  two  following.  *'  Let  all  the 
*'  angels  of  God  worfhip  him — At  the  name  of  Jcfus 
*•'  every  knee  fliall  bow.'*  But,  as  mere  allufions  and 
accommodations  have  their  foundation  in  thofc  rcfcm- 
bUnces,  which  our  imagination  finds  between  ancisnc 
prophecies  and  prefent  objets  ;  it  is  abfurd  to  fuppofc, 
that  the  apoflles  ground  the  worfliip  of  Chrill  upon  them. 
Were  this  the  cafe,  they  would  ad  jufl  like  a  man  who 
fhould  endeavour  to  prove.  That  a  private  foldier  deferves 
the  titles  of  majefly,  and  ought  to  be  honoured  as  a 
prince  and  conqueror  ;  becaufe  he  had  met  with  fome 
aurions,  or  expreffions,  in  the  hiflory  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  which  might,  by  wayofallufionor  accommodation, 
be  applied  to  him. 

Befides,  fuch  accommodations  would  be  impious  and 
blafphemous,  if  Jcfus  Chrifl  were  not  of  the  fame  eflence 
with  his  Father.  For  if,  out  of  regard  to  Chrid,  you 
would  not  dare  to  accommodate  to  any  man  living  thefe 
words,  **  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away 
"  the  fin  of  the  world  ;"  a  reverence  for  the  Supreme 
Being  ought  dill  more  forcibly  to  reflrain  us,  from 
applying  to  Jefus,  amere  creature,  the  pecuHar  characters 
of  the  Great  Creator.  Becaufe  the  dlfproportion, 
in  the  hitter  cafe,  is  infinitely  greater  than  that  in 
the  former:  and  becaufe  the  charafler  contained  in  the 
words  cf  the  Baptiftj  is  not  fo  peculiar  to  Jefus,  as  thofe 


SECT.  If.  214  CHAP.  Ill* 

titles  are  to  the  Great  Supreme,  which  are  found  in  the 
ancient  prophets.  For,  according  to  our  opponents, 
Chrift  is  in  fuch  a  manner  The  Lamb  of  God,  that 
another  might  have  been  fo  as  well  as  he,  if  the  eternal 
fovereign  had  ïo  ordained  :  but  the  Supreme  Being  is 
in  fuch  a  manner  Jehovah;  thk  Mighty  God; 
THF.  King  of  glory  ;  thl  Creator  or  heaten 
AND  earth;  and  the  Lord  of  Hosts  ;  that  none 
but  He  canprjffibly  have  the  glory.  If,  then,  we  could 
not,  without  blafphemy,  apply  to  any  other  man, 
whether  by  way  of  allufion,  or  of  accommodation,  this 
vne  charaé>er,  The  Lamb  of  God,  which,  though 
peculiar  to  Chrift,  has  no  relation  to  his  efience  ;  how 
much  more  impious  would  ii  ht.  to  apply  to  Jefus  fo 
many  grand  titles  of  the  Moft  High,  which  are  not  only 
peculiar  to  him,  but  exprtffive  of  his  tifence  ?  In  ihe 
former  cafe,  the  honour  of  a  creature,  highly  beloved 
of  God,  is  prejudiced  ;  in  the  latter,  the  glory  of  God 
himfclf  is  injured.  In  that,  the  only  danger  is,  left 
fcandal  be  given  by  a  profane  allufion  ;  in  //vj,  there 
■would  be  both  fcandal  and  feduftion  ;  fuch  fedu6lion 
as  would  terminate  in  idolatry  and  ruin,  by  confounding 
the  creature  with  the  Creator. 

Our  oppofers,  then,  may  put  their  imagination  upon 
the  ftretch  and  rack  their  wits  ;  they  may  labour  to 
render  fome  books  of  the  Holy  Scripture  fufpccted,  and 
fpecuiate  on  the  manner  hovv'  the  apoliMc^s  were  infpired, 
as  long  and  as  much  as  they  pleafe  ;  but  it  will  all  be  to 
no  purpofe,  while  it  remains  a  fa<5t.  That  the  apoflles 
.have  applied  to  Chrift,  whether  by  way  of  allufion,  or 
of  accommodation,  or  otherwife,  thofe  oracles  of  the 
prophets  which  charaâerize  the  true  God.  For  if  Jefus 
Chrilt  be  not  a  partaker  of  the  Divine  efience  ;  if  he 
be  a  mere  creature,  to  whom  fuch  chara(51ers  cannot 
pOiTibly  belong;  we  mu(l  confider  the  apofUes  as  betraying 
Xis  into  idolatry',  by  impious  witticlfms,  and  blafj.^hemous 
applications  of  the  prophetic  Writings. — It  nect/ruily 
faliow5;  therefore,  if  the  hypotheîis  of  our  adveruries 


iECT.  IV.  215  CHAP,  III. 

be  tru2,  Tliat  the  prophets  did  not  forefee  things  as  they 
wers  to  come  to  pafs  ;  and  that  the  apoflles,  either  did 
not  underdand  the  prophets,  or  they  deligned  to  betray 
U3  into  error  ;  confequently,  that  there  is  no  harmony 
between  tlie  Old  Tcilament  and  the  New, 


k 


2l6 


SECTION     V. 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  not  the  true  God, 
neither  the  ancient  Jewifli,  nor  the  Chrif- 
tian  Religion,  is  attended  with  fufficient 
Criteria  to  diilinguilh  it  from  Impollure. 


CHAPTER     I, 

The  profoCtion  proved,  in  refpcA  cf  the  Jcwifh  Religion. 

In  order  to  prove  the  propofiiion,  it  will  be 
proper  to  confider,  How  God  was  pleaftd  to  manifeft 
himfeif  under  the  Old,  and  alfo  under  the  New  Tella- 
ment. — At  the  commencement  of  the  Mofaic  ceconomy, 
Jehovah  nianifefkd  himfelf  to  the  fon  of  Amram,  upon 
mount  Horeb,  in  a  burning-budi  :  but  it  is  very 
obfervable,  that  he  who  appeared  to  Mofes  is  called, 
The  angel  of  the  Lord.  "  And  the  angel  of  the 
*•  Lord,  fays  the  facred  hiflorian,  appeared  unto  hira 
•*  in  a  flame  of  fire,  out  of  the  midli  of  a  bufh — And 
<'  Mofes  faid,  I  will  now  turn  afide  and  fee  this  great 
*'  fight — And  when  J  •:  h  ova  h  faw  that  he  turned  afide 
**  to  fee,  God  called  unto  him  out  of  the  midft:  of  the 
«*  bufh  and  faid,  Mofes,  Moil-s.  And  he  faid,  Here 
**  am  I — And  he  faid — I  am  the  God  of  thy  father, 
•*  THE  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Ifaac,  and 
«*  THE  God  of  Jacob."  But  I  forbear  to  tranfcribe 
the  whole  account  of  this  wonderful  vifion  j  the  reader 
may  perufe  it  at  his  leifure. 


SECT.   V.  a  17  CHAi'.   I, 

It  may,  however,  be  remarked,  that  when  Mof-; 
«tifcovered  a  rel advance  to  obey  the  Lord,  by  going  t.-. 
Pharaoh,  becaufe  he  had  an  impediment  in  his  fpeecl'  ; 
he  was  rebuked  by  him  in  the  following  manner  : 
•'  Who  hath  made  man's  mouth?  or  who  maketh  the 
*'  dumb,  or  deaf,  or  the  feeing,  cr  the  blind  ?  have 
*•  not  I  THE  Lord;'*  And,  Mofes  inquiring  what  he 
fliould  fay  to  the  children  of  Ifrael,  when  they  fhould 
afk  who  it  was  that  fent  him  ;  God  gave  himfclf  a  new 
name;  for  he  faid,  **  I  am  that  1  am.  Thus  H^alt 
**  thou  fay  unto  the  children  of  Ifrael,  I  am  hath  fent 
**  me  unto  you."  At  the  fdme  time,  to  obviate  any 
fa'picion  which  might  arife  in  their  minds,  that  Mofes 
fpake  of  an  unknown  God,  the  Divine  Speaker  adds  ; 
*'  Thus  flialt  thou  fay  unto  the  children  of  Ifrael,  The 
"  Lord  God  of  your  fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham, 
"  the  God  of  Ifaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  hath 
"  fent  me  unto  you.  This  is  my  name  ior  ever, 
"  and  this  is  mv  memorial  unto  all  genera- 
*'  TioNE."  And,  afterwards,  with  great  folcmnity  adds; 
"  I  will  (Iretch  out  my  hand,  and  fmite  Egypt  with  all 
*'  my  wonders,  which  I  will  do  in  the  midii  thereof; 
*'  and  after  that  he  will  let  you  go.  And  I  will  give 
**  this  people  favour  in  the  light  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
*'  it  Hîall  come  to  pafs  that  wh.cn  ye  go,  ye  fliall  not 
**  go  empty."  Ant!  again,  "When  ihou  gocft  to  return 
*'  into  Egypt,  fee  that  thou  do  all  ihofe  wonders  before 
"  Pharaoh,  which  I  have  put  in  thine  hand  :  but  I 
*'  will  harden  his  heart,  that  he  (hall  not  let  tlie  people 
<«  go." — He,  therefore,  who  fpake  to  Mofcs  in  the 
bufh,  mail  be  the  fame  divinely  glorious  Perfon,  who 
fpake  to  the  people  of  L^ael  from  the  top  of  mount 
Sinai,  in  the  following  language  :  **  I  am  the  Lord  thy 
**  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
*'  Egypt,  out  of  the  houfe  of  bor.dàge."  Confequently, 
the  very  fame  who  gave  the  law  to  Ifrael,  with  fuch 
folcmnity,  majefly,  and  g'ory. 
T 


:lci.  v.  2i8  chap.  i. 

He,  then,  who  manifeRs  himfelf  to  Mofcs,  is,  accord- 
ing to  our  hypothefis  ;  The  Angel  cf  the  Lord  ;  ihc 
Mefienger  of  the  covenant  ;  the  Etc—:  1  Wifdom  ;  the 
Son  of  God;  Jehovah  ;  God  ULKsstD  for  iter; 
bat  fo  foon  as  you  quit  this  hypothelîs,  you  run  into 
the  moii  glaring  and  impious  abfurdities. — That  He 
who  reveals  himfelf  to  Mofes,  is  the  y^«o^/  of  i/je  Lord, 
vjc  O'.igh-,  not  to  queflion,  we  cannot  doubt  ;  bccaufe  it 
13  exprefsly  declared  in  the  facred  text.  Nor  can  any 
fgure  be  here  fuppofed.  For,  admitting  that  an  angel 
of  God  might,  by  a  figure,  be  called  God  ;  yet  we  arc 
certain  that  God  the  Father  cannot,  by  any  figure,  be 
called  the  an^?e/  of  the  Lord. 

Here,  confequently,  according  to  our  oppoftrs,  we 
find  a  creature  inverting  himlelf  with  the  names  and  the 
attributes,  the  v/orks  and  the  glory,  of  the  infinite 
Creator  ;  fo  appropriating  them  to  himfelf,  that  it  is 
impcllible  to  dittinguifli  him  from  tlie  true  God.  For 
he  who  appeared  to  Mofes,  repeatedly  calls  himfelf  Go»> 
and  Jehovah.  He,  once  and  again,  denom.inates 
himfelf,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  Oot>  of  Ifaac^  and 
THE  God  rf  Jacob:  and,  in  fo  doing,  affuriies  the 
feveral  names  which  the  Hebrews  commonly  gave  to 
their  God  ;  whether  to  difHnguifh  him  from  all  his 
creatures,  or  to  contrail  him  with  the  gods  of  the 
Heaihen,  or  to  exprefs  his  infinite  perfedions.— Befides, 
this  Angel  appropriates  thefe  adorable  names  to  himfelf 
on  fuch  an  occafion,  as  rendered  it  of  the  lad  importance 
to  Mofes  and  the  chofen  tribes  that  he  fhculd  not  aflume 
them.  For  he  takes  them  at  a  time  when  he  cannot 
polTibly  do  it,  without  hnpofing  on  him  to  whom  he 
fpcaks  ;  fo  impofing  on  him,  as  to  betray  him,  and  the 
Ifraelites  in  general,  into  idolatry  ;  and  this  alfo  when 
Mofes  was  careful  not  to  be  deceived  ;  when  he  drew 
near  to  fee  who  it  was  that  appeared  to  him  ;  and  at  a 
lime  when  it  was  of  the  utmolè  confequence  for  him  to 
know,  by  whofe  authority  he  was  to  fpeak  to  the  people 
cf  Ifrael,  and  who  it  was  that  fcnt  him. 


5ECT.  V.  $t9  CHAP.   I. 

Aj^ain  :  He  who  reveals  himfelf  to  Mofe«,  not 
contented  with  thofe  names  which  the  God  of  Abraham 
had  ufiially  taken,  and  by  which  he  made  himfelf  known 
to  the  patriarchs,  gives  himfelf  a  new  name.  Now, 
admitting  that  a  creature  might,  on  fome  occafions, 
lawfully  alfume  one,  or  more,  of  the  names  of  God  ; 
yet,  certainly,  no  creature  can  give  himfelf  a  nenv  nanje 
of  God,  with  whatever  powers  he  may  be  invelted,  or 
to  whomfoever  he  may  fpeak.  For  GoA  fays,  *'  I  am 
**  Jkhovah  j  that  is  my  name — They  iliall  know  that 
"  my  name  is  Jkhovah."  Thefe  déclarations  moH. 
emphatically  (hew,  that  the  great  Name  is  not  common 
to  the  creature  with  the  Creator.  They  inform  us,  if 
any  expreflions  can  do  fo,  that  it  is  peculiar  to  the 
iSupreme  Being,  and  confccrated  to  his  adtnablc  e'Tencc; 
that  it  lo  belongs  to  the  Mofi  High,  thrit  ii  cannot  he 
afl'umed  by  any  oiher.  How  comes  it,  then,  that  we 
hear  an  angel  fay;  *'  I  am  that  I  am — Say  to  the 
♦<  children  of  Ifrael,  I  am  hath  fent  me  unto  you?'* 
How  came  he  to  utter  thefe  words  ;  *'  The  Lord  God 
«*  — THE  Gob  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Ifaac,  the 
**  God  of  Jacob — this  is  my  name  for  ever;  »nd  this 
•*  is  MY  memorial  to  all  generations?'* 

Further  :  Tins  angel  does  not  only  take  the  names  of 
Ood,  but  he  alfo  attributes  to  himfelf  the  works  and  the 
glory  of  God.  The  works  of  God.  This  he  does, 
in  a  very  emphatical  manner,  in  thofe  chiding  interro- 
gatories addrelled  to  the  procralHnating  Mofes.  *'  Who 
"  made  man's  mouth?  or  who  maketh  the  dumb,  or 
**  deaf,  or  the  feeing,  or  the  blind  ?  Have  not  I  the 
**  Lord?"  Thefe  exprefiions  evidently  fliew,  that  the 
angel  confiders  and  reveals  himfelf,  as  the  Creator  of 
all  things. — The  ^lory  of  God.  This  he  does  when 
he  calls  himfelf,  *'  The  God  of  Abrahanî,  of  Ifaac,  and 
**  of  Jacob."  For  Abraham's  God  was  acknouledged, 
by  that  illuftrious  prieft  Melchifedeck,  as  the  *'  PoiTefH  r 
•'  of  heaven  and  earth  ;"  by  Ifaac,  as  the  objedl  of  his 
%'or{hip,  for  he  is  called  *'  his  Fear  j"  and  by  Jacub 


3i:CT.   V.  220  CHAP.   I. 

he  ?s  adored,  as  ''  God  Almighty."  Beiidcs,  he  fays 
to  Mofes,  "  Draw  not  nigh  hither  ;  put  off  thy  fhoes 
**  from  off  thy  feet,  for  the  place  whereon  thou  Ibndtft 
"  is  holy  ground."  In  which  words  he  (Irongly  demands 
tliat  devotional  reverence  which  is  due  to  none  but  God. 
And  this  angel,  after  he  had  brought  the  Ifraelites  out 
of  Egypt  (for  we  have  fhewn  that  He  who  fpake  to 
Mofes  in  the  bufh,  was  the  deliverer  and  lawgiver  of 
ihe  chofen  tribes)  fpeaks  from  the  fummit  of  Horeb 
and  fays  ;  '*  Thou  (halt  have  no  other  gods  before  me." 

Now,  on  the  hypothefis  of  our  opponents,  it  (hould 
ilem  that  this  was  done,  to  render  the  Ifraelites  guilty 
of  impiety  and  idolatry.  Of  impiety  :  for  if  the  true 
God  be  more  glorious  and  worthy  of  adoration  than  this 
angel,  with  what  propriety  could  he  fay,  "  Thou  fhak 
*'  have  no  other  gods  before  me?" — Of  ululai ry :  for 
with  whatever  characters  this  angel  might  be  invelicd, 
if  lie  was  not  the  Moil  High,  he  could  not  lawfully 
require  fuch  honours  as  are  peculiar  to  God. — In  a 
word,  when  the  law  commands  us  to  worfhlp  God, 
and  him  only,  it  either  fpeaks  of  a  fupreme  or  a 
Julontinate  worfhip.  If  the  latter,  then,  as  before 
obferved,  there  is  no  fuch  thing  as  fupreme  worfhip 
mentioned  in  the  decalogue.  If  the  foimer^  as  our 
adverfarles  themfelves  acknowledge,  then  it  follows, 
that  this  Angel,  though  inferior  to  Jehovah,  required 
of  the  Ifraelites  that  fupreme  worfliip,  which  is  due  to 
none  but  the  true  God  ;  and,  confequently,  betrayed 
them  into  idolatry. 

This  idolatry  is  of  a  remarkable  kind,  and  has  various 
peculiarities  attending  it  which  are  very  furprifing.  For 
it  is  not  criniinaî,  on  the  part  of  the  Ifraelites.  They 
cannot  be  juflly  blamed  for  concluding,  that  he  who 
calls  himfeif  "  the  God  of  their  fathers,"  is  the  true 
God;  and  that  he  who  affumes  the  great  name,  Jeho- 
vah, and  claims  the  honour  of  "  making  the  dumb  and 
"  the  dtzï^  the  feeing  and  the  blind,"  is  the  Creator  of 
all  things.     Nor  are  they  culpable  for  paying  to  him 


1 


^ECT.  v.  C2I  CHAP.   r. 

who  reveals  himfti/  to  them  as  the  Creator  and  the 
Mighty  God,  r.ipreme  worfhip. — Again  :  This  idolatry 
is,  if  I  may  be  allowed  To  to  fpeak,  oi  divine  ivjlitution. 
Idolatry  ufually  fprings  from  our  corruptions  ;  but  this 
has  its  original  in  Divine  Revelation,  if  that  v.-hich 
Mofes  received  deferve  the  name.  For  God  himfelf 
fent  the  Angel  who  afTiimed  the  peculiar  cliara(5lers  of 
Jehovah's  glory  ;  or,  at  leaft,  the  Angcl  pretends  to  be 
God,  the  God  of  the  Hebrews.  For  when  he  fays  to 
Mofes,  "  T  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Ifaac, 
"  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ;"  he  either  defigns  to  pafs  for 
the  God  of  thofe  patriarchs,  or  he  does  not.  If  /jc/, 
his  difcourfe  is  impertinent  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end.  If  he  dots^  it  is  he  himfelf  who  betrays  the 
children  of  Ifrael  into  idolatry. — Once  more  :  This 
idolatry  v/as  unavoulvJi.  For  the  ancient  Hebrews 
could  not  avoid  it  without  maintaining,  cither  that  the 
true  God,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  when  condcfcending 
to  reveal  himfelf  to  man,  was  not  worthy  of  that  adoration 
which  he  requires  ;  or,  that  He  who  manifcded  himfelf 
to  Mofes  in  the  bufli,  and  to  the  people  on  Sinai,  was 
not  the  true  God,  the  God  of  the  patriarchs. 

*  But  this  Angel  fpeaks  in  the  perfon  of  Him  v/ho.n 

*  he  reprefents  ;  and  it  is  as  an  ambaffador  of  the  Mofl 

*  High,  that  he  bears  the  names  of  God.'  Then  he 
fnould  have  told  Mofes  fo,  when  he  anxioufly  inquired 
of  him,  "joho  he  was  ;  and  defired  to  be  informed,  by 
Tjhat  nam:  he  (houid  make  him  known  to  his  brethrca 
in  Egypt.  Had  that  been  the  cafe,  it  was  eafy,  it  wa-î 
natural,  it  was  abfolutely  ncceflary  for  him  to  have  faid, 

*  I  am  the  amhajfjdor,  or  the  ynejfen^er^  of  Abraham's 

*  God.'  But,  indead  of  that,  he  fays,  *'  I  am  run 
■**  God  of  Abraham." — Various  reafons  concur  to  afTare 
«s,  that  he  did  not  confider  himfelf,  that  he  did  not 
teveal  himfelf,  as  an  ambaffador.  For  inftance  ;  An 
ambafiador  does  not  give  neiu  nanus  to  his  matter,  when 
ipeaking  in  his  perfon,  and  (landing  in  his  place.  An 
ambaflador,  v/ho  reprefents  his  fovereign,  cannot  fay, 

T3 


SECT.  V.  222  CHAT.   I. 

*  Ye  (hall  have  no  other  king  but  mc  ;'  without  forfeiting 
his  allegiance,  and  deferving  to  be  treated  as  an  enemy 
to  his  prince.  An  ambaflador  docs  not  attribute  to 
liimfclf  the  perfonal  qualifications  of  his  mafler  ;  fuch  as, 
his  wifdom  and  power,  as  this  Angel  attributes  to  him- 
lelf  the  pcrfeâions  of  God.  Nor  can  any  ambafiador 
adiinie  to  himfelf  the  names  and  titles^  the  'works  and 
honours^  of  the  fovereign  whom  he  reprefents  ;  without 
provoking  the  jealoufy  of  his  ma(ler,  and  being  guilty 
cf  high-treafon.  For,  an  ainbaffador  is  called  to  advance 
ihe  honour  of  his  mafter  ;  not  to  afTume  his  prerogatives 
and  rob  him  of  his  giory,  as  this  Angel  does,  if  he  be 
only  an  ambafiador. 

Our  oppofers  may  fearch  for  examples  as  much  as 
tiiey  pleafe,  to  countenance  fuch  a  condu<^  ;  yet  I  will 
venture  to  fay,  they  can  find  only  one,  which  is  that  of 
\htjlage:  on  which  we  behold  a  prixate  perfon,  afl^jming 
ail  the  names  and  titles  of  the  king  he  reprefents  ;  attri- 
buting to  himfelf  his  works,  and  requiring  his  honours. 
Eut  here  it  is  all  fidlitious;  there  is  nothing  ferious  in 
it  :  cr,  if  the  actor  v/ere  ferious,  he  would  be  in  danger, 
cither  of  being  defpifed  for  his  weaknefs,  or  of  being 
punifhed  for  high-treafon.  Inexpreflîbly  fhocking  would 
it  be,  to  confider  the  Mofaic  religion  in  the  light  of  a 
comedy;  in  which  an  angel,  a  mere  creature,  adts  the 
part  of  the  Supreme  Being.  For  that  would  reprefent, 
matii  as  deceived  and  ruined  ;  God,  as  difhonoured 
and  blafphemed  j  and  both  by  Divine  connivance,  both 
by  Divine  agency. 

Yet,  horrid  as  the  thought  is,  it  is  countenanced  by 
the  hypothefes  of  our  antagonids.  For,  according  to 
their  view  of  this  pafTage,  an  angel  of  darkntfs,  intending 
to  draw  mankind  from  the  worfhip  of  the  true  God,  and 
l>eing  permitted  by  Jehovah  to  pradife  his  wiles  and  his 
malice  ;  would  have  taken  the  fame  method,  as  this 
angel  did,  in  order  to  fucceed  in  his  malignant  defigns. 
What  elfe  could  he  do  fo  likely  to  anfwer  his  end,  as  to 
afcribe  to  himfelf  the  naa^es,  titles,  and  works  of  the 


SECT.   V.  223  CHAP.   I. 

Deity;  by  faying  to  tlie  Tfraelites,  "  I  am  the  Goiy 
**  of  your  faiheis; — the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God 
**  of  Ifaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob?" — We  cannot 
believe  that  he  who  fpeaks  to  Mofes  is  a  mere  creature, 
without  fuppofing,  that  a  mere  creature  de(igns  to  pais 
for  the  God  of  the  Hebrews.  For  how  is  it  poflible 
to  conceive  that  an  angel,  who  does  not  defign  to  be 
confidered  as  the  God  of  Ifrael,  fliould  fay  to  Mofes, 
with  a  view  to  inform  him  who  he  is  ;**  I  am  the 
*•  God  of  Abraham,  of  Ifaac,  and  of  Jacob  ?'*  But 
if  he  be  a  mere  creature,  and  yet  defigns  to  put  himfelf 
in  the  place  of  God  ;  he  is  guilty  of  impiety,  and 
chargeable  with  a  defign  of  leading  mankind  into  idolatry. 
Thus  we  muft  conceive  of  his  condu<51.  And  though 
■we  fhould  afterwards  find  that  he  performs  very  won- 
ilcrful  works,  yet  they  may  be  jufUy  fufpec^ed  ;  becaufe 
the  law  direifls  us  to  judge  of  miracles  by  the  dotflrine, 
not  of  dodrine  by  the  miracles*.  Thus  the  Jewifn 
religion  lofes  its  Divine  chara<5lers  ;  and,  indead  of 
being  an  appointment  of  God  and  the  praâice  of  it 
communion  with  him,  we  conceive  a  black  fufpicion, 
that  it  isa  trick  of  the  fpirit  of  darknefs,  and  an  idolatrous 
commerce. 

The  fuppofition  is  horrid  ;  but,  without  abandoning 
the  Socinian  and  Arian  hypothefes,  we  cannot  eafily 
lofe  fight  of  it.  For  what  criteria  will  you  find  in  the 
Mofaic  fyflem,  to  convince  you  of  its  divinity  ;  if  yoa 
once  confider  it  as  having  its  rife  in  deception  and 
falfehood  ?  Do  you  mention  its  hoUnefs  ?  but  that,  more 
than  any  thing,  is  cabled  into  queftion.  For  what  holinefs 
can  there  be  in  a  religion  which  originated  in  impofture, 
and  is  maintained  by  idolatry  ?  If  you  fay,  God  fpake 
to  Mofes  ;  it  is  anfwered,  Not  God,  but  an  angel,  who 
put  himfelf  in  the  place  of  God.  If  you  allege  the  mirackt 
that  were  performed  by  Mofes  ;  I  reply,  Many  and 
wonderful    works    were    alfo    wrought   by    Pharaoh's 

•  Deut.  xiii,  x— J^ 


SECT.  V.  224  CHAI'.  î. 

Bisgicians:  fo  that  little  more  can  be  infcrreclfrom  thence, 
than  that  the  fpirit,  of  whofe  agency  Mofes  was  the 
inftrument,  was  more  powerful  than  he  who  favoured 
the  magicians.  For  fads,  liowever  great  and  wonderful, 
ought  not  to  be  afcribed  to  the  immediate  agency  and 
miraculous  interpofition  of  God,  if  inconfilJent  with 
hohnefs  ;  which  is  manifel^ly  the  cafe,  in  tlie  Mofaic 
religion,  on  the  hypothefes  condemned. 

That  the  Angel,  who  reveals  himfelf  to  Mofes,  aâs 
inconfiftently  with  the  glory  of  God,  fuppofing  that 
Angel  to  be  a  mere  creature  ;  will  further  appear,  if 
the  following  things  be  confidered.  It  is  evident  from 
the  Scripture,  that  God's  defign  was,  to  exalt  Jefus 
Chrift  above  all  the  angels.  For  of  him  it  is  written, 
"  He  hath,  by  inheritance,  obtained  a  more  excellent 
*♦'  name  than  they — To  which  of  the  angels  faid  he  at 
•'  any  time.  Sit  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine 
**  enemies  thy  foot-ftool  ? — Let  all  the  angels  of  God 
•'  worfiîip  him." — This  is  the  dodrine  of  the  facred 
author. — But  Chrilt,  according  to  the  Socinians,  is 
exalted  above  the  angels,  not  on  account  of  his  nature; 
for  the  human  is  far  inferior  to  the  angelic  nature  ;  but 
in  virtue  of  the  offices ^  trujs,  and^//?/,  which  he  received. 
For,  on  their  principles,  it  is  only  on  account  of  thefc 
that  he  is  called  God.  If,  then,  he  was  a  mere  angel 
who  appeared  to  Mofes,  and  delivered  the  Ifraelites  from 
Egyptian  bondage  ;  it  unavoidably  follows,  that  an  angel 
was  more  exalted  and  more  honoured  than  Jefus  Chrift, 
contrary  to  God's  defign. 

This  appears  from  hence.  Jefus  Chrifl,  according 
to  O'jr  opponents,  is  called  God,  by  a  kind  of  analogy  ; 
but  this  angel  caHs  himfelf,  "  The  God  of  Abraham, 
♦'  of  Ifaac,  and  of  Jacob." — Chrifl:  is  addrefled  only 
vith  fubordinate  worfliip  ;  but  this  angel  caufes  himfelf 
to  be  adored,  as  the  Supreme  Being.  For  he  fays, 
V  Thou  fhalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me." — The 
former  attributes  to  himfelf  the  works  of  God  ;  fo  does 
the  latter,  io  the  m.oft  explicit  manner.     "  Who  hath 


SECT.  V.  2^5  CHAP.  r. 

**  made  man's  mouth  ?  or  who  maketh  the  dumb,  or 
**  deaf,  or  the  feeing,  or  the  blind?  have  not  T  Jehovah  ? 
"  I  will  Ihetch  out  my  hand,  and  fmite  Egypt  with  all 
*'  my  wonders— 'I  will  bring  you  up  out  of  the  afHicftioa 
**  of  Egypt — I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have 
*♦  brought  thee  out  of  thee  land  of  Egypt." — Does 
Jefus  bear  very  high  and  honourable  charaders  r  fo  does 
this  angel.  For  he  is  called  God,  and  Jehovah, 
repeatedly  ;  he  is  alfo  denominated,  the  Lord  God  of 
theHkbrews;  the  Fkar  of  Ifa.îC  ;  and  the  Judge 
OF  THE  WHOLE  EARTH,  in  whofc  prefencc  the  re- 
nowned Abraham  was  but  dull  and  aflies  ;  for  it  is  the 
fame  Angel  of  the  Lord,  concerning  whom  all  thefc 
things  are  fpoken. 

Now  as  thefe  characftcrs,  in  the  opinion  of  our 
adverfaries,  are  too  high  and  grand  for  Jefus  Chrifl  ; 
they  ought,  upon  their  principles,  to  confider  this  Angel 
as  ufurping  the  glory  of  God.  But  if  fo,  he  betrays  the 
Ifraelites  into  impiety,  and  becomes  their  idol.  Confe- 
quently,  the  religion  which  he  teaches,  the  religion  which 
he  e(tablifhes,  has  not  fufficient  criteria  to  diftingaifh 
it  from  impoilure. — You  meet,  I  allow,  with  many 
wonderful  and  fupernatural  things  in  the  eftablifhment 
of  it;  but  then  you  find  them  produced  by  one  who 
ufiirps  the  glory  of  the  true  God,  which  is  a  charatfter 
of  the  fpirit  of  darknefs.  What  a  blafphemous  thought  ! 
what  a  detefîable  fufpicion  1  Does  the  fpirit  of  darknefs 
concern  himfelf  in  the  holinefs  and  happinefs  of  men, 
that  he  fhould  give  them  fo  pure  and  perfcvfl  a  lav,'  ? 
Impoffible  !  We  may  reft  aifured,  therefore,  that  the 
principle  which  leads  to  fuch  %  monitrous  and  horrid 
conchjfion,  njuft  be  (dC^» 


k 


SECT.  V.  ^26  CHAP.   II, 

CHAPTER     IL 

The  propofition  J>rovcd,  in  rcfpea  of  the  Chriftian  F  eligicn. 


W] 


HAT  has  been  faid  of  the  Angel  who 
appeared  to  Mofes,  may  be  aflerted  of  Jefus  Chrirt,  if 
the  doétrine  of  our  oppofers  be  true.  To  prove  and 
iliuii^rate  the  point,  I  would  offer  the  following  things  to 
the  reader's  confideration. 

The  New  Teftametu,  it  is  evident,  afcribes  the  mofl 
fignal  works  of  God  to  Jefus  Chrilt  :  fuch  as,  the 
creation  of  all  things,  which  had  always  charadterized 
the  God  oflfrael;  i\\q  prefervatiov  of  ail  things,  which 
belongs  to  the  Creator  ;  and  the  redemption  of  the  world, 
which  the  prophets  refer  to  the  Si:j)reme  Being,  an4 
to  him  only.  The  fame  infaillible  rule  of  our  faith 
attributes  to  him  the  perfeSionSy  and  namesy  and  glory  of 
God.     There  he   is  defcribed,    as  equal  with  God,    as 

o/î^  with    God,   and  as  God  blkssj?:d  for    eter 

When,  therefore,  it  is  conildered,  that  all  thefe  things 
were  faid  and  recorded  of  him,  by  his  diredion  and 
\)nder  hh  infpiration,  we  may  venture  to  afHim  ;  That 
9  proud,  prefumptuous,  rebellious  creature,  whofe  inten- 
tion it  was  to  invade  the  honour,  and  to  put  himfelf  in 
the  place  of  God,  could  not  have  adopted  a  more 
j>romiiing  mode  of  proceeding,  or  have  better  fucceedec^ 
in  his  deiign.  But  thefe  things  deferve  a  more  particii- 
lar  con  A  deration. 

The  New  Tefiament  afcribes  to  Jefus  Chrlft  the  moft 
magnifcent  and  fignal  zuorks  of  God.  To  begin  with 
the  work  oî  creation.  Could  Paul,  intending  to  defcrlbe 
his  divine  Mafter  as  the  Creator  of  dl  things,  have  ufed 
more  emphatical,  or  more  pertinent  exprefiions  thaa 
thefe  ?  "  For  by  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in 
*•  heaven,  and  that  arc  in  earth,  yifible  and  invifible  \ 


SECT.   V.  Il-}  CHAP.   II. 

**  whether  they  be  throne:,  or  dominions,  or  principali- 
*'  ties,  or  powers  :  all  thir.^s  were  created  hy  him,  and 
*'/or  him.  And  He  is  before  all  ihings,  and  by  him  all 
*'  tilings  confiil."  Of  Him  it  is  faid,  *'  There  is — one 
"  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  by  whom  are  all  things.  All 
**  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  was  not 
"  any  thing  made  that  was  made.  He  laid  the  founda- 
*<  tion  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of 
*•  his  hands." — The  prtfcrvat'wn  of  the  world,  or  the 
corfervation  of  all  things,  is  alfo  attributed  to  him  For 
it  is  exprefsly  faid,  **  By  him  all  things  confitl..  He 
"  upholdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power." — The 
a  dmin'ijî  ration  of  Providence  ;  and,  efpecially,  the  care  of 
believers.  **  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alvvay,  even  unto  the 
*'  end  of  the  world.  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
**  together  in  my  name,  thee  am  lin  the  midilof  them." 
A  promife  this,  which  Chri(l  could  not  perform,  as  man, 
but  only  as  God  :  bccaufe,  as  man,  he  is  limited  by 
time  and  place  ;  as  God,  he  ad^s  independently  on  both. 
To  fay  that  he  is  in  the  midrt  of  our  religious  affemblies 
*  by  his  Spirit,'  is  not  fufficient.  For  if  the  Spirit 
intended  be  the  Spirit  of  Chrii^  Chriil  mufl  be  God  ; 
becaufe  that  Spirit  is  prefent,  with  devout  v/orfhippers, 
in  all  places  at  the  fame  time.  But  that  Jefus  is  really 
and  properly  God,  Our  opponents  will  not  allow.  The 
Spirit  in  que.'lion,  therefore,  mult  be  that  of  the  Father, 
and  not  of  Chrill  ;  confequently,  not  our  Lord,  but 
ihe  Divine  Father,  is  prefent  in  our  a/Temblies.  îs^or 
is  Jefus  faid  to  be  in  the  midil  of  his  people  '  by  faiih,' 
\vhich  is  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  ElilTia  received  a 
portion  of  ihe  fpirit  of  Elijah,  in  receiving  from  God 
fuch  gifts  as  were  fimilar  to  thofe  of  Elijah  ;  yet  it  is 
never  faid  that  Elijah  was  with  the  Jews,  or  in  the 
midil  of  their  affemblies,  after  his  afcenlion  into  heaven. 
— That  greatefl  of  all  Divine  tranfaclions,  that  mod 
wonderful  of  all  Divine  works.  Redemption,  is  attri- 
buted to  him  in  a  peculiar  manner.  Hence  he  is  fo 
cfften,  and  in  the  mofl  emphatlcal  fenfe,    called  the 


SECT.  V.  228  CHAP.   H. 

Saviour  and  Redeemer:  and  hence  the  church  is 
leprefentcd  as  his  property  and  purchale.  *'  The  church 
**  of  God,  which  he  purchafed  with  his  own  blood." 
Remarkable  words  !  They  (bcngly  imply,  that  Jefus, 
the  Redeemer,  is  God  ;  and  that  he  is  declared  10  be 
fo,  by  the  work  of  redemption.  They  lead  us  a!fo  to 
refleà  on  that  gracious  declaration,  by  an  ancient 
prophet;  *' Your  God  will  come — he  will  come  and 
*'  fave  you" — Our  fandif cation  is  attributed  to  hira. 
He  enlightens  cur  minds  and  converts  our  hearts.  He 
quickens  tlie  dead  in  fin,  and  in  his  hands  the  faints  are 
preferved  to  eternal  life.  Yet  faniSihcation  is  a  Divine 
work:  *'  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  us,  both  to  will 
**  and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleafure."- — The  Scriptures 
attribute  the  work  of  gloriJicaÙQn  alfo  to  Jefus  Chrift. 
*'  He  thatovercometh,  the  fame  fliallbe  clothed  in  white 
*'  raiment  ;  and  I  will  not  blot  out  his  name  out  of  the 
<*  book  of  life — Him  that  overcometh,  will  I  make  a 
*'  pillar  in  the  temple  of  my  God,  and  he  (hall  go  no 
f  more  out — To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  grant  to 
*'  fît  with  me  in  my  throne." 

Tlie  perfcLlicns  of  Gcd  are  afcribed  to  Jefus  Chrifl.— 
The  pcxer  of  Gcd.  He  *'  upholdeth  all  things  by 
*'  the  word  of  his  power." — The  knoiukcJge  of  God. 
*'  All  the  churches  fliall  know  that  I  am  He  which 
**  fearcheth  the  reins  and  heart — Lord,  thou  knoweft 
«'  all  things." — The  ttenilly  of  God.  "  His  name  fliall 
*'  be  called — The  everhlHng  Father.  Thou  art  the 
**  fame,  and  thy  years  fnall  not  fail." — The  imtnenfuy 
of  Gcd.  "  No  man  haih  afcended  up  to  heaven,  but 
*"  he  that  came  down  from  heaven  ;  even  the  Son  of 
**  man  v.'hich  is  in  heaven." — The  truth  7Lï\à  fa'ithfulnefs 
•of  God.  *'  I  am  the  truth — Thus  faith  the  Amen." 
— The  mercy  of  God  :  for  He  pardoneth  fin. — The 
.authority  of  God  :  for  he  conimaivded  the  gofpel  to  be 
preached  in  his  own  name  ;  and  fent  his  difciples  to 
*'  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
*'  Sfld  cf  the  Holy  Ghoftj"  and,  as  the  Judge  of  aJI, 


SECT,  v.-  229  CHAV.   1:. 

He  declare?,  "  Î  v-ill  give  to  every  one  accordlrg  to 
*'  his  works."  He  alfo  gave  pjwer  to  the  apoftlcs  to 
woik  miracles  in  his  name,  as  tlie  prophets  wrought, 
miracles  in  the  name  of  God. — Th.çJ-u/lice  of  God.  Foi* 
of  Him  the  Baptift  fpcaks,  when  he  fays  ;  *'  He  lliall 
*'  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire.'* 

Jefus  Chrifl  alfo  bears  the  moil  eminent  and  exprcfllve 
iii/c's  of  Deity.  The  Most  High,  is  a  charader 
evidently  peculiar  to  the  true  God.  Yet  Zacharias, 
uhen  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  calls  our  Lord,  *'  The 
•*  Higheft,"  or  the  Moil  High  — The  majefly  of  God 
is  ex},'refled,  in  the  Old  Tellament,  by  the  title,  '♦  King 
*'  of  glory  :''  Chnd  is  called  in  the  New,  "  '1  he  Lord 
"  of  glory."— The  God  of  Ifiael  is  called  ''  the  Holy 
*<  One  ;'*  Jefjs,  according  to  the  evangelift  John's 
application  of  Ifaiah's  viHon,  is  adored  by  the  feraphim 
as  the  "  thrice  Holy  Lord." — He  is  alfo  ftyled, 
"  the  Saviour  ;  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords  ; 
*'  the  Firft  and  the  La(l  j"  which  are  titles  of  the 
Supreme  Being. 

Again  :  He  is  declared  to  be,  one  vvith<]lod  ;  equr.l 
with  God  ;  the  fame  v>ith  God.  He  is  one  with  God. 
**  I  and  ihe  Father  are  s/.'^-,"  fays  tlie  Amen,  the  faithfid 
and  the  true  Witnefs.  One  ;  not  in  perfon^  for  they 
are  diftindr  :  bcfidcs,  the  word  bk,  is  in  the  neu'er  gender, 
and  will  not  bear  fuch  an  interpretation.  Nor  in  corfeni; 
for  the  fenfe  is  too  low  :  it  afierts  nothing  of  our  Divine 
Lord,  but  Vv'bat  may  be  aiBrmed  of  every  creature  that 
is  ])erfe<5lly  holy.  All  the  faints  in  light,  and  all  the 
angels  in  glory,  are  one  with  the  Father,  by  a  confer.t 
of  will  ;  they  having  no  inclination,  no  defire,  contrary 
to  his.  It  muft,  therefore,  be  an  unity  of  eftn^e  that 
is  here  intended.  And  that  it  is  fo  appears  from  the 
context.  For  Jefus  having  declared,  in  the  imn^ediately 
preccdi:>g  verfes,  that  ♦'  his  (beep  (hall  never  perilh,'"' 
and  that  none  fhall  pluck  them,  either  out  of  his  own, 
or  out  of  his  Father's  hand?  ;  adds,  to  confirm  the 
aifertion,  and  to  judify  his  claim  of  invincible,  Di\ine 
U 


bilCT.  V.  ^2>^  CHAP.   II. 

power  ;  "  I  and  the  Father  arc  one."  It  is,  therefore, 
an  unity  of  pnxver  which  he  means.  But  he  who  aflerts, 
that  two  are  one  by  an  unity  of  power  ;  affirms  that 
ihey  are  one  by  an  unity  of  eficncc.  A  Chriftian,  in 
the  prcfent  ftate,  may  be  one  with  God,  by  an  unity  of 
confenc  ;  he  having  nothing  to  do,  in  order  to  fuch  an 
unity,  but  cordially  to  acc^uiefce  in  the  methods  of 
Divine  providence  and  grace  :  but  lie  could  not  without 
hlafphemy  fay  ;  *  Thefe,  or  thofe,  fliall  never  perifli  ; 
'  nor   fhall  any  one  pluck  them   out  of  mine,  or  my 

*  Father's  hand.  I  and  the  Father  are  one.*  But 
that  which  removes  every  doubt,  in  this  refpecfl,  is, 
thefe  expreflions  are  explained,  and  our  fsnfc  of  them 
fupported,  by  other  pafTages  perfedly  fnnilar. 

Jefus  Chri(i:  is  eq-ial  with  God.  "  He  thought  it 
«*  not  robbery  lo  be  equal  with  God,"  fays  an  unerring 
writer.  This  equality  raufi  include  fomething  greater, 
and  fomething  more  Divine,  than  an  unity  of  confent 
between  Chrilt  and  the  F;ither.  Nothing  fliort  of  an 
unity  of  ejjence  can  anfwer  the  import  of  the  phrafe  ; 
for,  otherv/ife,  it  would  contradid  that  high  demand, 
fo  often  repeated  by  Jehovah  ;  **  To  v/hom  will  ye 
*'  liken  me,  and  make  me  equal,  and  compare  me, 
*' that  we  may  be  like?'* — Some,  perhaps,  may  fay; 
<  Jefus  Chrid  is  equal  with  God,  becaufe  the  Father 

*  has  exalted  him  to  an  equality,'  An  equality,  in  what 
refped  ?  Of  nature?  Our  adverfarics  cannot  fuppofe  it. 
OÎ offices i  trufts,  and  honours?  But  the  delegation  and 
grant  of  thefe  necefiarily  fuppofe,  that  he  who  receives 
them  is,  in  that  refpe^lf  inferior  to  him  who  confers 
them.  That  the  Father  therefore,  fhould  exalt  Chrift 
to  an  equality  wiih  him,  implies  a  contradidion  :  becaufe 
in  whatever  refpcvfl:  any  one  is  exalted  by  him,  in  that 
Tcry  rcfpcifl  he  muft  be  inferior  to  him.  Jefus  Chrift 
we  freely  allow,  is  highly  exalted  by  the  Father  ;  but 
that  exaltation  regards  his  perfon,  charadler,  and  ftate, 
ds  mediator;  under  which  confideration,  though  he  ia 
th-Ç  church's  head;  yet  he  is  the  Father's  righteoi^s 


à 


SECT.   V.  231  CHAP.  II. 

fervant. — Befidcs,  the  glory  of  the  Great  Supreme  mull 
be  incommunicable. 

Again  :  To  be  Qne  with  God  ;  to  be  equal  with  God  ; 
to  be  God's  oiun  Son;  and,  to  be  God;  are,  in  the 
language  of  infpiration,  plirafcs  of  a  fimilar  import,  and 
may  be  fafely  explained  one  by  another.  So,  we  find, 
the  Jews  undcrrtood  them.  For  when  our  Lord  faid, 
**  I  and  the  Father  are  one  ;"  they  took  up  flones  to 
ftone  him.  And  when  Jefus  alked  them  the  reafon  of 
their  outragious  conduit,  they  anfwered  ;  "  Becaufc 
"  that  thou,  being  a  man,  makeft  thyfelf  God."  Yvoïw 
%vhence  it  is  evident,  that,  in  their  opinion,  to  be  one 
with  the  Father,  and  to  be  God-,  are  the  fame  thing  — 
\\\  the  fame  exalted  point  of  light  they  conlidered  the 
harai^er,  Son  of  God,  as  afîamed  by  Jefi:s  Chrir. 
For  they  looked  upon  him  as  appropiiuti.v.T  i»  to  himfcl;, 
in  ?i  proper,  not  in  ?i  figurative  fenle.  No,  they  woulii 
;iever  have  made  fuch  a  dir,  nor  hj^yç  j^i^  fç  hçavy  a 
cnarge  again  (I  him,  if  the  only  c.aufc  cf  ccr.-;pl„;.-.;  liô.i 
been  ;  That  he  called  himfelf  the  Son  of  God,  by  a 
metaphor,  or  by  adoption.  For  they  confidered  them- 
felves  as  the  adopted  fons  of  God  ;  faying,  *'  We  havo 
**  one  Father,  even  God."  They,  therefore,  muft 
mean  fomething  very  different  from  this,  when  they  fay  ; 
*•  We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die, 
"  becaufe  he  made  himfelf  the  Son  of  God."  And, 
in  another  place,  they  explain  thcmfelves  ;  they  let  us 
know  more  fully  what  they  underltood  by  the  augufl 
charatfter.  For  when  Jefus,  vindicating  his  condudl  iu 
healing  the  impotent  man  on  the  fabbath-day,  faid  ; 
*'  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work  :  they 
♦'  fought  the  more  to  kill  him  ;  becaufe  he  not  only  had 
*'  broken  the  fabbath,  but  faid  alfo,  that  Goo  was  his 
"  Father,  making  himfelf  eq^tal  with  God."  *  Fro.ni 
which  it  is  manifefl,  that  to  be  *'  God's  own  Son,"  and 
to  be  "  equal  with  God,"  were  the  fame  thing  in  their 
account.  And,  indeed,  the  characters,  oivn  Son,  and 
pa/y    S:?nj   naturally  fignify   an   equality,   a  faminejs  of 


SLOT.   V.  232  CKAT.   II. 

cJcnce. — We  hive  no  reafon,  therefore,  to  be  fui prifcd 
that  the  Jews,  taking  his  words  in  their  proper  Itpfe, 
fr.oJd  think  that  he  claimed  and  afkrted  an  equality  with 
Ood.  Nor  did  our  Lord  give  them  any  intimation,  that 
they  had  mifundcrftood  him  ;  nor  yet  the  evangelift,  as 
],edoes  in  feverai  other  inllànces  of  much  Icfs  importance; 
which  filence  is  a  ftrong  prefiimptive  proof,  that  they 
v.eie  not  under  a  miitake  about  the  fenfc  of  the  words  : 
ÎOV  fach  a  miitake,  on  the  principles  of  our  oppofers, 
r.iipht  have  been  an  occafion  of  idolatry  in  them  ;  aVid 
r  niiltake  of  that  kind,  not  remarked  by  the  hiilorian, 
^.culd  be  calculated  to  anfwer  the  fame  pernicious 
.-jrpofe  in  fucceeding  generations. 

Nothing  can  be  more  oppofitè  tlian  the  condud  of 
tliofe  Jews,  who  accufed  Chrifl  of  blafphemy  ;  and  thai 
wf  others,  who  faid  of  Herod,  **  It  is  the  voice  of  a  god, 
'•  and  not  of  a  man."  When,  therefore,  we  juflify  the 
one,  we  mud  condemn  the  other.  The  former  will  not 
^.ii.w  TrH.-»  to  fpeak  of  hlmfelf  as  God,  becaufe  he  i«  1 
I  ian  :  the  laiier  will  not  have  Herod  to  exprefs  himfeif 
ks  a  man,  but  afcribe  to  him  the  voice  of  God.  Now 
if  Pro^idence  condemn  the  impiety  oïthefe,  by  punifhing 
Herod  in  a  (Ignal  nianner,  for  not  rejeding  their  blaf- 
i  hemous  applaiife  ;  Heaven,  on  the  hypothefis  of  our 
oppofers,  muli  approve  the  hmguage  oiihofe  who  exclaim 
i.gâinfi  Jefus  Chrifl,  for  making  himfeif  equal  with  God. 
And  if  their  chaige  of  blafphemy  had  been  founded  on 
a  miflake,  by  taking  his  words  in  a  wrong  fenfe  ;  he 
ought,  one  would  think,  to  have  fet  them  right,  by 
explaining  the  terms  he  ufed.  But  if  he  refufed  to 
corre(5t  fo  dangerous  a  miftake  on  that  account,  yet  was. 
it  not  neceffary  that  he  ftiould  have  done  it  on  ours? 
that  when  we  read  his  gofpel,  we  might  not  entertaia 
the  deteflable  thought,  that  he  equalled  himfeif  with  ihe 
Mofl  High.  If,  however,  he  thought  it  proper  not  ta 
explain  himfeif,  at  that  time  ;  yet  it  might  have  been 
c.xpcilcd,  that  his  difciplcs  fhould  have  given  us  the 


S£CT,   V.  '233  Cil  A?.  îî. 

true  fenfe  of  the  inyneiious  v.ords,  when  they  reported 
them. 

But,  fo  far  from  this,  the  cvangelhls  and  apoflles, 
who  undoubtedly  knew  his  meaning  ;  and  who  knew 
alfo  that  he  was  condemned  for  a  defign  "to  abo!tjJo  the 
law  of  Mofes,  and  for  having  blofphetned  the  fovereiga 
majeiJy  of  God,  by  claiming  an  equality  with  him  ; 
clear  him  in  the  fermer  cafe,  and  leave  us  perfedly 
fatisfied,  by  fliewing  in  what  fenfe  he  abolillied  the  law, 
and  in  what  refpccls  he  fulfilled  it.  But,  as  to  the  laiter^ 
they  take  no  notice  of  it.  Nay,  they  not  only  forbear 
to  vindicate  hi;n  from  the  charge  of  blafphcmy,  but 
feem  to  write  as  if  they  intended  to  confirm  the 
accufation.  For,  knowing  wlv.t  had  pafied,  they  give 
him  fuch  titles  of  grandeur  and  Divinity  after  his 
refurreétion,  as  he  never  afîumed  while  he  was  upon 
caith.  What  is  it,  then,  on  the  hypotl.efiG  of  our 
opponents,  but  to  authorize  the  charge  of  blafphemy, 
which  the  Jev/s  faflened  upon  him,  for  Paul  to  .'.(Tcrt  ; 
"  He  thought  it  not  rcbbcry  to  be  eqj.îal  with 
'«God?'» 

Further:  After  thefe  invincible  reafons  to  ihe  contrary, 
for  invincible  they  are  on  the  principles  of  our  advcrfarics; 
the  apolHes  reprefent  their  Mailer  as  being  the  fame 
with  God  ;  by  faying  many  fablime  things  of  him,  whicli 
never  were,  and  which  never  could  be  faid  of  any  but 
th.e  true  God,  without  impiety.  Thy  call  him  God  ; 
God,  with  the  highelt  epithets.  For  example  :  They 
call  him  Thk  great  God;  the  tîiue  God;  God 
OVER.  ALL  KLiissED  vo'x  EVER.  In  their  infallible 
writings  he  is  denominated,  The  Lord;  (the  cxprefiion 
by  which  the  Seventy  render  the  mod  augu(l  names  of 
God)  THE  Lord  of  Glory;  my  Lord  and  my 
God;  the  God  of  Israel  ;  the  King  of  kings  ane» 
Lord  of  Lords.  H&  who  is,  and  v/as,  and  is  to 
COME.  Such  are  the  charafters  given  by  the  apollles 
40  Jsfus  Chriit,  by  which  to  judify  him  againft  the 
charge  of  ««  maki/ig  hin:fdf  equal  with  God  3"  and  by 

^^3 


SECT.  V.  234  CHAP.  ir. 

which  to  confute  the  formal  and  folemn  accufation, 
drawn  up  againll  him  in  the  face  of  the  whole  world, 
under  which  he  died  ! 

The  genuine  import  of  feveral  of  thofe  titles  which  I 
have  jult  mentioned,  has  been  already  confidered  :  I 
ihall,  therefore,  only  jult  touch  upon  a  few  of  them.  Th  t 
.I-.ORi)GoD  OF  IsRAUL,  is  a  title  given  tojefus  Chiif^  by 
the  angel  to  Zacharias,  whtn  foretelling  the  honourable 
^vA  fviccefsful  woik  of  John  the  Baptifl.  Thefi  are  his 
v;crds  :  "And  many  of  the  children  of  îfrael  fhall  he 
**  turn  to  THE  I^ORD  THEIR  GcD.  And  he  fnall  go 
**  before  Him,  in  the  fpirit  and  power  of  Elias."  He 
before  whom  the  Baptiit  went,  was  the  Lord,  the  God 
of  Ifrael.  But  He  before  whom  he  went,  was  Jefiis 
Chrifl.  Jefjs  Chriit,  therefore,  is  the  God  of  Ifrael. 
He  is  called  the  true  God.  *'  We  know  that  the 
*'  Son  ofGcd  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  underflanding 
♦'  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true:  and  we  are  in 
*'  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jefus  Chrid.  This 
**  is  THE  TRUE  GoD,  and  eternal  life."  That  inter- 
]>retation  which  rcfeis  ihefe  words,  "This  is  the  tmt 
*'  God,"  to  the  Father,  and  not  to  the  Son,  is  i^iiïiciently 
refuted  by  producing  the  paffage. 

The  Great  God,  is  another  of  his  Divine  titles. 
**  Looking  for  that  blefled  hope,  and  the  glorious 
*'  appearing  of  the  Great  God,  and,  or  even,  our 
**  Saviour  Jefus  Chri(t."  The  article  *  which,  in 
the  original,  is  put  before  Great  God,  and  belongs 
equally  to  Saviour,  is  a  proof  that  both  thefe  characters 
are  applied  to  the  fame  Perfon  ;  a  certain  proof,  that 
our  Lord  is  here  called  the  Great  God.  as  well  as 
THE  Saviour.  The  adjeâive  greai,  being  conneded 
with  the  term  Saviour^  as  well  as  with  the  term  God  ; 
which  is  the  reafon  why  the  Greek  article  is  put  before 
tiîe  epithet  ^r£û/,  and  not  before  the  noun  God» 


Tov  it'Aydè.cv  0iev  KCi!  ç'Jl>ifoç,   Tit.  ii.  13. 


SECT.   V.  235  CHAP.   IIU 

The  fame  divinely  glorious  Perfon  is  c?J^d    GoD 

OVER   ALL    BLE'SSfeD   FOR    ^VER.        "  Of  whoiî:,,       S  COn- 

•<  cerning  the  flefh,  Chrift  came,  who  is  ovr.K  all, 
•*  God  blessed  for  ever."  Th-;  parr.eil  defire  of 
our  opponents,  to  evade  the  force  o^  this  paffage,  is 
evident  by  their  maintaining,  that  the  words,  •*  who  is 
**  over  all,  God  bleffed  for  ever,"  relate  to  God  the 
Father  ;  though  he  is  not  fo  much  as  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  verfes,  and  though  the  term  Chrj/i  is  the 
roun,  to  which  the  relative  who  naturally  and  neceiTaxily 
belongs. 


CHAPTER     III. 

K  JEsos  Christ  hi  not  the  true  God,  the  Chiiftian  Religion 
}ias  not  fufticient  Criteria,  by  which  to  diftinguifh  it  from 
Idolatry  and  Impoflure, 

J\  ND  now,  if  the  principles  of  our  advcrfaries 
be  true,  it  is  no  very  diiHcuIt  thing  to  make  good  of  the 
Chnjiianj  what  we  have  already  proved  of  the  Jewifh 
religion  :  that  is,  horrid  idea  !  it  is  not  diftinguifliablc 
from  idolatry  and  impoflure. 

Not  from  idolatry.  For  in  what  does  idolatry  çonfifl, 
but  in  confounding  the  creature  with  the  Creator  ?  And 
what  is  confounding  the  creature  with  the  Creator,  but 
inverting  the  former  widi  the  peculiar  honours  and 
«Ifential  glory  of  the  laiter?  Herod,  as  before  obferved, 
was  guilty  of  blafphemy,  and  the  people  of  idolatry, 
v;hen  he  received  their  impious  applaufe;  ''It  is  the  voice 
"  of  a  god  and  not  of  a  man  i'^*  though  they  confidered 
bim  (Hi!  as  a  real  man.  They  who  cart  a  grain  of 
incenfe  before  an  idol,  were  guilty  of  idoJalry,  though 
they  did  it  with  rçlu^ânce.  One  could  not  fwear  by  the 


SECT.   V.  236  CHAr.   III. 

emperor's  head,  without  being  guilty  of  the  fame  crime  ; 
though  nobody,  on  that  account,  could  imagine  the 
emperor  to  be  God.  But  it  would  be  the  height  of 
idolatry  to  call  him  God,  and  to  pay  him  Divine 
honours,  as  the  Romans  did,  on  fome  occafions.  Becaufe 
idolatry  does  not  only  confift  in  giving  to  a  creature  all 
that  is  due  to  the  Creator  ;  but  in  giving  any  thing  to 
the  former,  which  belongs  to  none  but  the  latter.  The 
{"acred  writers,  hov^ever,  not  only  afcribe  to  Jefu» 
Chrifl  a  part  of  what  is  peculiar  to  God  ;  but  they  agree 
in  attributing  to  him  all  the  mod  peculiar  and  eflential 
-chara(5^eriftics  of  his  glory.  They  afcribe  to  Jefus  the 
mod  magnificent  of  all  Divine  works.  To  him  they 
attribute  the  power  and  wifdom,  the  immenfity  and 
eternity  of  God,  with  other  perfe6tions  of  the  Divine 
nature.  They  alfo  give  him  God*s  titles,  names,  and 
glory.  How,  then,  would  it  be  poffible  to  confound  the 
creature  with  the  Creator  to  a  greater  degree  ? 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  faid  ;   •  Though   the  writers  of 
«the  New  Teftament  fpeak  of  Chrilt  as  one  of  that 

<  partakes,  in  fome  meafure,  of  the  glory  of  the  Deity'; 
*  yet,  that  he  might  cot  be  accufed   of  a   defign  to 

<  confound  himfelf  with  God,  he  exprefsly  declared, 
««  The  Father  is  greater  than  I." — But  this  is  far  from, 
invalidating  our  argument.  A  perfon,  for  inflance, 
who  loves  money,  who  is  really  a  covetous  man,  and 
who  has  bowed  all  his  life  at  the  fhrine  of  Mammon, 
will  readily  allow,  That  God  is  the  chief  good,  and  to 
be  loved  above  all  riches.  Yet  fuch  an  acknowledgment 
will  neither  acquit  him  from  the  charge  of  covetoufnefs, 
nor  from  the  guilt  of  idolatry. — A  man  who  (hould 
afTume  the  titles  and  names  of  God,  with  a  view  to  be 
^^rfllipped,  would  fet  himfelf  up  for  an  idol,  though 
he  were  once  and  again  to  confefs.  Thai  God  is  greater 
than  he.  Or,  to  vary  the  comparifon.  a  fubjed  who 
Ihould  afcribe  to  himfelf  all  the  works  of  his  fovereign  ; 
aflume  his  titles  ;  and  call  himfelf,  the  true  king,  the 
great  king,  and  the  Igrd  of  the  Hate,  whom  all  around 


SECTi   V.  IX":!  CHAP.   1ÎÎ. 

are  bound  to  obey  ; — who  fiiould  ciiufe  himfelf  to  be 
addrefTed  as  king,  and  exa(5l  fuch  honours  as  were 
never  given  to  any  but  the  real  monarch;  v/ould  certainly 
be  guilty  of  high-treafon,  though  he  might  have  faid^ 
OHce  at  ieaft,  The  king  is  greater  than  I. 

Again  :  The  Chriitian  religion,  according  to  the 
Socinian  hypothefis,  is  not  dillinguilhable  from  tmpojîure; 
is  littie  beiter  than  an  impious  comedy^  which  is 
calculated  to  diflionour  God  and  deceive  mankiTîd.  For, 
fhocking  to  imagine  !  Jefus  Chriit  appears  in  the  church 
much  hke  an  aélor  on  the  ftage  ;  v.ho  takes  the  names 
and  titles  of  a  king;  who  attributes  to  himfelf  his  works, 
and  requires  his  honours,  without  being  really  what  he 
pretends  to  be.  Yet  with  this  difference,  a  player  on 
the  ftage,  wh^n  acting  the  part  of  a  fovereign,  docs 
not  pretend  that  the  play  is  an  important  reality  ;  nor 
that  the  fpedators  fhould  pay  him  the  honours  of  royalt\'| 
afcer  the  reprefentation  ;  nor  yet  that  they  fhould  be 
Hncerely  perfuaded  he  Is  a  king,  "^hWz  the  p!âjf 
continues.  But  here,  according  to  the  impious  genius 
of  the  Socinian  fyftem,  we  have  a  kind  of  comedy,  in 
which  a  mere  man  calls  himfelf  God;  the  great 
God  ;  the  mighty  God  ;  and  the  true  God  ; — who 
requires  Divine  honours,  and,  as  God,  has  received 
them  from  his  mo(l  eminent  difciples,  though  he  depend 
on  God  for  his  very  exiflence. 

That  the  Chriftian  religion  is  turned,  by  the  Socinian 
fyflem,  into  an  empty  appearance  and  mere  (hew,  is 
evident.  For  you  find  in  it,  a  reprefenlative  God  and 
a  metaphorical  facrifice  ;  an  atonement,  that  is  only  fo 
in  appearance,  and  an  imaginary  hell  :  for  the  wicked, 
according  to  the  Socinians,  Ihall  be  annihilated. 

*  But  the  miracles  which  Jefus  wrought  were  true  and 

*  real  ;    nor    ought    they    to    be    compared    with    the 

*  reprefentations  of  the  ftage.'  This  confideration, 
detached  from  other  things,  is  of  little  weight.  For  of 
what  worth  are  miracles  performed  by  one,  who  attempted 
to  feat  himfelf  on  the  throne  of  the  Deiiy  ?  If  Jefus 


SECT.  V,  238  CHAP.  IIJ. 

ufurp  the  glory  of  God,  neither  humility,  nor  juftice, 
ïior  zeal  for  God,  nor  love  to  men,  can  be  found  in 
him.  On  this  fuppofition,  all  his  virtues  and  all  his 
piety  are  obfcured  and  Jod  :  and  in  their  (lead  we 
behold,  pride  and  ambition,  injuQice  and  facrilege, 
blafphemy  and  fedu(5tion.  For  as  miracles,  accompanied 
with  holinefs,  are  evidently  wrought  by  the  Spirit  of 
God;  fo  tbofe  works,  however  amazing,  which  patronize 
blafphemy  and  idolatry,  ought  ever  to  be  confidered  as 
proceeding  from  the  fpirit  of  darknefs. 

But  I  (hail  not  further  enlarge  on  this  argument,  nor 
any  longer  defile  my  paper  with  fuch  horrid  fuppofitions. 
Enough,  I  perfuade  myfelf,  has  been  faid  to  prove,  into 
what  a  dreadful  abyfs  the  principles  of  our  adverf.iies 
lead.  Enough  alfo  h.is  be£n  faid  to  evince,  that  the 
Deity  of  Jefus  Chriil  is  essential  to  the  ChrifHan 
religion  ;  which  is  the  grand  principle  I  propofed  t* 
^emondrate. 


^39 


SECTION     VI. 


The  principal  objc<ftions  anfwered  ;  and  forae 
Confidcrations,  adapted  to  relieve  the  mind 
rerpe<5ling  tiie  Difiicukies  which  attend 
this  Great  Myftery. 


CHAPTER     L 

Divine  Revelation,  not  depraved  Reafon,  to  be  our  Guide  iu  aM 
inquiries  of  thie  nature. 

XlAVINGeflablifhed  the  truth,  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  Records  of  Infpiration  j  our  next 
bufinefs  is,  to  anfwer  the  principal  objeÛions,  which  are 
made  by  cur  opponents.  They  argue  againft  us  botk 
from  reafon  and  Scripture  ;  but  while  we  are  firmly 
perfuaded  that  neither  found  reafon,  nor  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  rightly  underflood,  will  afford  any  real 
©bjedion  againft  us;  we  cannot  foibear  obferving,  that 
our  oppofeis  lay  more  flrefs  on  arguments  drav/n  from 
rrafon,  than  on  thofe' derived  from  Divine  Revelation. 
Strange  as  this  conduit  may  appear  to  fome,  who  are  not 
verfed  in  thefe  controverfies,  we  cannot  cafily  queflion 
the  facl,  if  we  confidcr  the  language  of  their  mod 
celebrated  v^riters. — Smalcius,  for  inftance,  is  not 
a(hamed  thus  to  exprefs  himfelf;  *  We  believe,  that 
'  though  we  fliould  find  it,  not  once,  nor  twice,  but 

*  VERY    FREQUENTLY    AND    MOST   EXPRESSLY  Written 

•'*  ill  the  Scripture,  That  God  iioj  made  man;  it  would 


GECT.  VI.  240  CHAP.  1, 

*  be  much  better,  as  it  is  an  abfurd  propofition,  entirely 
»  ooNTRARY  TO  SOUND  REASON,  and  full  of  blafphenu', 

*  to  invent  fome  way  of  fpeaking,  which  might  render 

*  it  fafe  to  be  affirmed  of  God,  rather  than  to  underftand 

*  it  in  the  literal  fenfe*.'     As  if  he  had  faid»  We  are 


•  Thefe  are  his  words  :   '  Gredimus,  etianifi  non  femel  atque 

*  ttcritm,   fed  satis    crebro    et    diserj  issime    scripxcm 

*  extaret,  Daim  ejfe  hominsm  faSlum^  multo  fatius  eflc,  quialixc 
'  res  fit  abfurda,   et  eanae  rationi  plane  contraria,  et 

*  inDeumblafphema,  modum  aliquem  dicendi  ccmmini^ci, 
'  quo  ifla  de  Deo  dici  pofiint,  quam  ifta  fimpliciter  ita  ut  verba 
'  fonant  intelligerc'     Smal    Homll.  VIII.  ad  Cap.  I  Joh. 

To  thefe  bold  aflertlons  of  Smalcius,  in  oppofition  to  the 
dodrine  of  the  incarnation,  may  be  added  the  no  lefs  unwarrant- 
able declarations  of  Sccinus  and  Sculichtingius  :  iheformery 
in  reference  to  the  ilubftitution  and  atonement  of  Chrift  ; 
the  /atier,  relating  to  the  efficacy  of  Divine  grace  and  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will. — '  Ego  quidem,    faith  SpciNus, 

*  etiamfi  ncnfcmel  fed  baepe  id  in  Sacns  Monumentis  fcriptura 
'  extaret,  non  idcirco  tamen  rem  ita  prorfus  fe  habere  crederem, 
'  ut  vos  opinamini.  Quum  ea  quae  fieri  non  poffe  aperte  conftat, 
'  Divinis  etiam   Oraculls   ea    fuiffe    in  fpeciem    atteftantibus, 

*  requ?.qu?.m  admittantur  ;  et  idcirco  facra  verba  in  ajlium 
'  SENSUM  quam  ipfa  fonant  per  inusi  iatos  etiam  tropos 

*  quandoque  explicantur.'  De  Serijat.  Part.  III.  Cap,  "\'I.  That 
ij.  Though  it  [the  dodrine  of  the  atonement  and  fatisfa<Prion  of 
Chriftj  were  found,  not  only  once,  but  frequently  writt  en 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  I,  indeed,  would  not  therefore  believe 
it  to  be  entirely  as  you  fuppofe.  Though  the  Divine  Oracles 
may  attell  things  to  be  fo,  in  appearance  ;  yet  they  cannot, 
by  any  means,  be  admitted,  becaufe  they  are  very  evidently 
impoflible  :  and,  tiiereforc,  the  lacred  words  are  fometimes 
(explained,  EVEN  bv  unusual  (  ropes,  to  a  sense  différ- 
ent from  tlieir  liferal  fignificationt 

I'hc  foUov/ing  are  the  woids  of  Schlichtingids  :  *  Itaque 
'  non  quia  utrumque  Scriptura  dicat  propterea  b^c  inter  fe 
'  non  pu<.;nare  concludenJuai  cd;  fed  potius  quia  hxc  inter  fe 
'  pu;rnanc  idco  akerutrum  a  Scriptura  non  dici  ftatuendum  eft.' 
Ad  Meifn.  D:f..Sooin.  p.  20. — That  is,  We  cannot  conclude, 
bi-caule  the  Scripture  i'fïïrms  them  both,  [i.  e.  the  energy  of 
Divine  grace,  and  Ùic  frudom  of  the  human  will]  that  tliercfore 
they  are  not  repugnant  the  one  tcthe  other  ;  but,  as  thefe  two 


SECT.   VI.  24Î  CHAP.   I, 

determined  to  regulate,  not  our  theological  ft^ntiments, 
by  the  Scriptures;  hat  the  Scriptures,  by  our  precon- 
ceived opinions.  I3ut  let  us  confider  this  point  a  little 
more  particularly. 

If  human  reafon  had  not  been  corrupted  by  fin,  we. 
might  have  placed  a  great  degree  of  dependence  upon  it  ; 
yet  even  then  it  would  not  have  been  rational,  to  rely 
more  on  the  powers  of  our  own  underflanding,  than  on 
the  light  of  Divine  Revelation,  fjppofing  fuch  a  Reve- 
lation to  have  been  enjoyed  :  becaufe  the  knowledge 
of  man,  when  his  reafon  was  unimpaired,  was  limited  ; 
but  the  knowledge  of  God  is  infinite.  Wha.  a  difparity, 
then,  mu(t  there  be,  when  the  human  underflanding  i=î 
n-jt  only  limited,  but  corrupted  ;  when  the  unavoidable 
commerce  between  a  man*s  thoughts  and  his  depraved 
paflions,  fills  his  mind  with  a  multitude  of  prejudices, 
vhich  have  a  tendency  in  various  ways  to  difguife,  or 
conceal,  the  truth  I — Were  we  bound  to  believe  nothing 
but  what  appears  conformable  to  reafon,  in  its  prefent 
flate,  we  might  foon  rejetfl  the  great  obje<5ls  revealed  in 
the  gofpel,  in  general.  For,  after  all  the  Arenuous 
c.'îbrts  of  our  adverfaries,  to  remove  the  grand  dimculties 
attending  the  Chrifiian  religion  ;  there  are,  and  there 
always  will  be,  fucli  depths  in  it,  as  are  unfathomable  by 
the  plummet  of  human  reafon.  On  this  account,  the 
apollle  of  the  Gentiles  calls  the  gofpel  foo^ifl:mfs.  If 
t):ie  dodrines  of  Chriltranity  had  nothing  myderious  and 
inexplicable  in  them,  there  would  be  no  difBculty  in 
believing  ;  nor  would  faith  be  any  more  the  gift  of  God, 
than  the  perfuafion  we  have  of  natural  truths.     Confe- 


t'hinjTs  arc  inconfiftent,  we  ought  rather  to  conclude,  that  or.c 
cf  them  is  not  mentioned  in  Scripture. 

Tlie  above  quotations  from  Smalàus  and  Soclnux,  with  many 
Juiiicous  remarks  on  the  Ufc  jnJ  Abufe  of  Re^foii^  relatit/g  to  the 
J^Iyfleriâs  of  Faith,  may  be  found  in  the  learned,  accurate,  and 
eva.Tgeljcai  Winjus.  See  his  MfcdL  Sac.  Tom.  II.  txcrcit. 
XV  U. 

X 


SECT.   VI.  242  CHAP.   I. 

cjuently,  there  would  be  no  more  occaiion  for  the  agency 
♦'-f  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  our  beHeving  the  truths 
of  the  gofjiel,  than  there  is  to  oar  underitanding  the 
]iroh]cnis  cf  geometry. 

To  a6l  on  this  principle  of  our  oppofers  is  to  treat 
Gcd,  as  if  lie  were  Ids  worthy  of  credit  than  an  honeft 
man.  A  fallible  mortal,  who  has  not  forfeited  his 
characfler,  as  a  pevfon  of  veracity,  would  take  it  defervcdly 
ill,  if,  wlien  fpeaking  of  any  extraordinary  fad,  of  which 
he  was  an  cye-witr.cfs,  he  was  to  fay,  '  Take  my  word 
«  for  it  ;  it  is  as  I  alTert  :'  and  we  fhould  reply,  *  We 

*  mud  confider  what  you  fay.     If  we  find  it  agreeable 

*  to  our  reafon,  we  will  believe  you;  if  not,  we  fhall 

*  entirely  rejeO  your  tefrimony.'  If,  then,  fuch  language 
would  be  reckoned  indecent  towards  a  fellow-worm  ; 
rvhat  muH:  we  think  of  a  fimilar  condu(5t,  in  regard  to 
God,  who  is  equally  incapable  of  deceiving  us,  as  he  is 
of  being  deceived  ? 

*  But   all  divines   hare   ufcd  the  H^me   prudence  in 

*  matters  of  Icfs  importance  to  the  glory  of  God.   They 

*  have  thought  themfelves  v/arranted  to  underdand,  not 
'  in  a  literal,  but  a  figurative  fenfe,  all  fuch  paflages  of 

*  Scripture  as  would  otherwife  appear  inconfident  with 

*  the  perfection  and  glory  of  the  Divine  Majedy.     As 

*  for  example,  when  it  is  faid,  "  God  came  down  ;  God 
«  was  wroth  :"  and  when  fuch  exprclTions  are  ufed>  as 

*  attribute  the  members  of  a  human  body  to  the  Supreme 
'  Being.' — To  which  I  reply  ;  The  indances  adduced 
;;re  far  from  being  parallel.  The  doiTrrine  of  the  incar- 
nation is  not  incompatible  with  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
Majedy,  as  is  the  opinion  of  the  Anthropomorphites  : 
for  we  cannot  afcribe  to  God  the  parts  of  a  human  body, 
without  fuppofing  bounds,  mutability,  and  imperfe(5tion 
in  him.  But  the  dodlrine  of  the  incarnation  infers  no 
fuch  impious  abfurdities.  The  Divine  nature  undergoes 
no  alteration,  by  its  union  with  the  human  nature.  Nor 
do  the  expreffions  of  Scripture,  underdood  in  their  moft 
fliitural  fsnfe,  and  compared  one  with  another,  impofe 


SECT.   VI.  243  CHAP.   I. 

2  neceflity  npon  us  of  being  Anthropomorphites  ;  or  to 
attribute  our  weaknefTes  and  inipcifcvitions  to  God.  For 
nature  and  reafon  do  not  fpeak  louder  than  Divine 
Revektion,  that  God  is  unckattgcaF-'e — That  the  heaven 
of  heavens  cannot  contain  him — That  he  is  no:  l:ke  a  maty 
inor  any  of  his  creatures. 

If  reafon  were  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith,  Revelation 
would  be  fupeifeded.  For,  to  what  purpofe  fhould  God 
Eiake  known  the  counfel  of  his  will,  if  reafon  were 
allowed  to  fay;  *  This  is  not  the  counfel  of  God.  îc 
*  cannot  be,  for  I  do  not  comprehend  it  V  Thus  the 
confcience  would  be  influenced,  not  by  Revelation,  but 
hv  the  doubt  which  reafon  had  raifed  upon  it- — Beddcs, 
if  it  were  lawful  for  human  reafon  to  fit  in  judgment  oa 
Divine  Revelation,  tlic  darknefs  introductd  on  u.r.- 
minds,  by  fin,  could  never  be  diflipated.  For  hov./ 
/hould  reafon,  proud  of  her  own'pretended  abilities,  and 
rtfolved  to  corre^^:  Revelation  itfelf,  be  enlightened  ? 
According  to  this  arrogant  and  felf-fulficient  notion, 
faith  in  the  Divine  teilimony  is  entirely  fet  afidc  ;  reafo.i 
being  refolved  on  following  her  own  light,  in  preference 
to  that  of  God  in  the  Scriptures.  So  that,  inilead  oF 
faying,  I  believe  fuch  a  propofition,  how  incredible 
foever  it  may  feem,  becaufe  God  has  revealed  it  ;  we 
mud  fay,  Though  God  has  revealed  it  in  the  mofl  plain 
and  exprefs  terms,  we  will  not  believe  it,  becaufe  ic 
appears  incredible  to  us. — Again:  Were  we  thus  to 
exalt  reafon,  what  is  ufually  called  Dirine  faith,  would 
be  much  inferior  to  that  which  is  human  :  becaufe  wo 
ihould  not  pay  fo  great  a  regard  to  the  declarations  or 
God,  as  to  thofe  of  our  parents,  mailers  and  tutors  ^ 
on  whofe  bare  authority  we  receive  a  great  number  ot 
truths,  relating  to  the  affairs  of  common  life.  But,  \\ 
fuch  a  cafe,  where  is  humility,  where  is  that  filial, 
teachable  fpirit,  which  is  one  of  the  marks  of  oui 
adoption  and  regeneration  ?  What  need  of  fubmittir.g 
10  the  diclates  of  Infpiration,  becaufe  it  is  the  Eternal 
Sovereign  who  fpeaks  ;  when  we  have  nothing  to  do 
X  2 


•irCT.  Vî.  544  CHAP.   I. 

b'jt  convince  ouifelves  of  all  necoiT.iry  truths,  by  their 
ovvn  internal  charadlers  ;  and  to  reject,  or  embrace  them, 
:n  exad  proportion  as  they  agree  or  dif;igrce  with  the 
Ji^ht  of  our  own  undcrftanding  ? 

*  Reafon,  our  opponents  will  fay,  rcifon  is  the  fcun- 
'  dation  of  faith  :  confequently,  faith  cannot  be  more 

*  certain  than  reafon.' — Reafon,  I  confcfs,  leads  to 
Revelation  ;  becaufe  we  are  taught  by  it,  that  Gon  is 
\  fallibly  wife,  and  that  ive  are  liable  to  err  ;  that  we 
canr.ot,  therefore,  do  better  than  regard  the  light  of 
Revelation,  in  preference  to  the  uncertain  conjeflures  of 
ov.r  own  minds.  Bat  then,  as  reafon  leads  us  to  this 
infallible  rule,  which  was  given  bv  uncontrollable  autho- 
riiy  ;  fhe  requires  us  to  receive,  with  fubmiffion,  whatever 
The  Great  Revealer  alferts,  as  a  fad  ;  commands,  as  a 
fluty  ;  or  propofes,  as  an  objed  of  faith, — We  may 
ôifHnguilli  three  things  in  faith  ;  and  thefe  are,  the 
principle,  the  difcretion,  and  the  conclufion  of  it.  That 
findamental  maxim  and  firlt  idea  in  Revealed  religion, 

*  Whatever  God  fays  is  true  ;'  I  call  the  principle  of 
faith.  Its  difcretion^  is  that  examination  by  which  we 
affure  ourfelves  that  God  fpeaks,  and  endeavour  to 
underiland  what  he  means.  And  the  conclufion  of  it, 
is  that  afTent  which  we  give  to  the  truth  of  a  propofition, 
becaufe  it  is  contained  in  the  Revelation  of  God  ;  and 
becaufe  we  are  perfe(5ily  fntisfied,  that  whatever  God 
iays  m.ufi:  be  true. — Thefe  things  premifed,  I  readily 
grant,  that  reaXon  leads  us  to  xht  principle  of  faith.  By 
the  pureft  light  of  our  underftanding  we  are  perfuaded, 
that  whatever  God  fays  is  true.  Reafon  alio,  I  freely 
acknowledge,  makes  the  difcretion  of  faith  :  becaufe  it 
is  that  faculty  of  the  mind  which  is  imprefied  with  thofe 
charadlers  of  Divinity,  that  are  contained  in  Revelation  ; 
and  afterwards  inquires,  whether  fuch  or  fuch  a  do(5^rine 
be  revealed,  by  examining  and  comparing  one  pafTage 
of  Scripture  with  another.  But  this  is  all  ;  and  reafon 
mud  acquiefce  in  what  God  fays,  without  prefuming  to 
call  into  quellioa  the  truth  or  the  propriety  of  his  words, 


6ECT.  VI.  245  CKAP.  U 

when  once  their  meaning  appears.  The  contrary  difpo- 
fition  is  not  divine  faith,  but  an  intolerable  temtrily  of 
a  kind  of  reafon  ihar  would  be  independent  on  God.  We 
may,  therefore,  fafely  conclude,  without  the  imputation 
of  rafhnefs,  that  the  language  of  Smalcius,  in  the  paflage 
produced,  is  pregnant  with  blafphcmy  againd  the  Reve- 
lation of  God  :  and  in  direct  oppo(ition  to  it  we  (hould 
fay  ;  Though  this  propofition,  *  God  was  made  man,' 
appeared  much  more  contrary  to  reafan  than  it  really 
does  ;  yet  we  ought  to  conclude,  that  we  are  under  a 
millake,  and  that  the  propofition  exprefTes  a  wonderful 
fa«fl  and  a  capital  truth,  becaufe  it  is  contained  in  ths: 
WordofJf.  HovAH.— Thefetwodeclarationsccmpared, 
it  will  appear,  that  the  former  is  daiing  and  prefamptu- 
ous  ;  as  it  includes  a  manifed  preference  of  the  powers 
of  our  own  underllanding,  to  the  infallible  divftates  of 
infpiration  ;  which  is  diredly  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
true  faith.  But  the  latter  is  mode(t,  humble,  rational  ; 
as  it  implies  a  reverence  for  Divine  authority,  and  an 
evident  preference  of  the  light  of  God's  Revelation,  to 
that  of  our  own  reafon  ;  difpofitions  thcfe,  which  arc 
efîential  to  real  faiih  *•. 

*  To  what  :s  here  f  àdby  our  Author  on  this  intereftlng  fub- 
jec5l,  I  beg  leave  to  fubjoin  the  rcafoning  of  a  late  el'.gant  and 
evangelical  writer,  ai}d  the  tcftimony  of  a  great  genius  in  the 
beginning  of  the  laft  century,  relatinjij  to  the  fame  truth.  Th»; 
former  expreffes  hinifcif  thus  :  '  We  by  no  means  approve  of  a 
'  general  and  indifcriminate  outcry  againfl  reafon.     This  v.'ouli 

*  be  i::jurious  to  our  facred  caufe,  and  imply  a  rcflcdlion  on  our 

*  holy  religion  ;  as  though  it  could  not  bear  th.e  fcrutiny  of  reafon. 
'  Whereas  it  will  always  appear  to  be  a  rcafonablc  fylleni  ;  i 
'  reasonable  fcrvice;  reafon  in  its  higheft  refinement. — If  indeed 
'  reafon  afFeils  to  be  felf-fufficient,  fhe  is  an  impotent  ufurper  : 

but  if  {he  avfl  in  a  ftate^  of  dependence,  fie  is  a  valuable 
fervant.  Docs  f^ie  pretend  to  be  our  light,  in  matters  of  a  fpiri- 
tnal  and  heavenly  nature  ?  ftie  is  then  a  defpicable  dotard,  or 

*  an  ign'is  fatuus.     Does  flic  kindle  her    tcrch    at  the  fire    of 

*  Revelation  ?  fne  mav  then  be  a  difcerncr  of  dodlrines,  and  we 
'  will  call  her  "  I'he  candle  of  the  Lord."  Submitting  to  her 
'  Divine  Author,  and  learning  at  t;ie  feet  cf  Omniftu^ace,  fhs 


£i:CT.  VJ.  246  CHAP.  II, 


CHAPTER     IL 


An  objeétion  from  the  fuppofed   Silence  of  the    Scripture, 
anfwered. 


Ti 


HAT  we  may  not  be  fufpecled  of  weak- 
ening the  arguments  of  our  adverfaries,  we  fhall  make 
ufe  of  their  own  words  ;  and  if,  to  avoid  prolixity,  v/e 
contradl  them  a  little,  their  objedions  will  not  be  the  lefs 
forcible. — The  argument,  then,  uhich  appears  to  us  to 
be  the  fufl  in  order,  and  one  of  the  molt  plaufible,  is 
that  which  they  form  on  the  farpofed  jUcncs  cf  tlie 
Scripture,  as  to  the  my  fiery  of  the  incarnation. 

•  is  reafon  in  hsr  fenfes:  ptefuming  to  be  equahv-th  the  All-wife  ; 

♦  undert^iking  to  comprehend  his  works,  or  daring  to  difpute 
'  his  word  ;  fhe  is  reafon  run  mad.  In  this  quality  we  difclaim 
'  and  cafliier  her  ;  in  the  other  we  cherifli  and  employ  her.— 

*  Though  I  could  not,  by  the  powers  of  my  reafon  difcover — 

*  though  I  cannot,  by  the  excercife  of  my  reafon  fully  explain — 
'  all  the  articles  of  my  belief;  yet  1  can  ''  give  a  reafon,"  a 
'  very  fatisfadory  reafon,  ''  of  the  hope  that  is  in  me."     This 

*  is  what  the  apoftle  requires  us  to  do  ;  and  without  doing  this, 
'  we  are  neither  wife  nor  happy.' 

The  latter  bears  his  teflimony  in  the  following  words  :   *  The 
'  prerogative  of    God  comprehends    the   whole  (man  ;  and  is 

•  extended,  as  well  to  the  reafon,  as  to  the  luHl  of  man  :  that  is, 

•  that  man  renounce   himfclf  wholly,  and  draw  near  to  God. 

*  Wherefore,  as  we  are  to  obey  his  laivy  though  wc  find  a 
'  reluélation  in  our  will;  fo  we  are  to  believe  his  ivcrd,  though 

*  we  find  a  rt-lu6lation  in  our  reafon,  for  if  wc  believe  only  that 

•  which  is  agreeable  to  our  reafon,  we  give  aficnt  to  the  matter^ 

•  not  to  the  author  ;  which  is  no  more  than  wc  would  do  towards 

•  afufpededanddifcreditedwitnefs. — Sacred  theology  is  ground - 

*  ed  on,  and  muft  be   deduced  from,  the  Grades  of  God  ;  and 

*  not  from  the  light  of  nature,  or  the  didates  of  reafon — *'  To 

"   THE     LAW    AND   TO     THE     TESIIMON'Y  ;    if    they    fpCûk    HOt 

**  according  to  this  word,  it  is  becaufe  there  is  no  light  in  them." 
Lgrd  Bacon's  Advancement  of  Leaming,  p.  468,  46p. 


5£Cr.  VI.  247  CHAP.  ÎI. 

«  We  fee,  fay  they,  that  thofe  things  which  are  difficult 
'  to  be  believed,  yet  abfolutely  necefTary  to  falvation,  are 

*  very  frequently  and  plainly  exprefTed  in  the  Scriptures. 

*  Such,  for  inOance,  as  the  creation  of  heaven  and  earth; 
•the    care  which   God    takes    of  human   affairs;    his 

*  knowledge  of  our  tlioughts  ;  the  refurreflion  of  the 

*  dead,   and  eternal   life,      x'arious   things  alio  of  lefs 

*  importance,  are  clearly  and  diftindly  contained  in  holy 

*  Writ  For  example,  **  That  Jtfus  Chrift  is  of  the 
*'  feed  of  David." — -Now,  if  the  incarnation  of  the 
<  fupreme  God  were  a  fad,    it  would   be  an  article  of 

*  faith  abfolutely  neceflary,  and  at  the  fame  time  very 
«  difficult  to  be  believed.     It  ought,  therefore,  to  have 

*  been  very  clearly   aflerted,    in   the  Scripture  ;  and  Co 

*  frequently    inculcated,    by   the   facred   writers,    who 

*  defigned   to  promote  and  fecure  our  happinefs,   that 

*  none  ffiould  have  had  any  reafon  to  doubt  whether  it 

*  was  a  part  of  Divine  Revelation.     Yet  it  appears  to  us, 

*  that  there  is  no  fuch  thing  contained  in  their  writings. 

*  For  the  pafiages;  produced  by  our  adverfarics  to  prove 

*  the  tenet,  are  of  fuch  a  nature,  that  they  are  obliged  to 

*  draw  feveral  confequences  from  them,  before  they  can 

*  infer  the  incarnation  of  the  mod  Higii  God  ;   or,  that 

*  he  was  made  man. — Nor  is  the  dotflrinc  of  the  incarna- 

*  tion  mentioned  where  it  fhould  be,  fuppofing  it  were 

*  true.    For,  when  Matthew  and  Luke  write  the  hidory 

*  of  the  birth  of  Chriil,  and  relate  a  variety  of  particulars, 

*  of  much  lefs  importance  than  the  incarnation  of  the 

*  fupreme  God  ;  how   is  it  poffible  they  fhould    have 

*  omitted,  fhould  have  entirely  pafTedover  in  filence,  that 

*  wonderful  fadl,  had  it  been  true  ?  They  inform  us,  that 

*  Jefus  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;   that  he  was 

*  born  of  a  virgin,  in  the  days  of  Auguflus,  and  at  the 

*  town  of  Bethlehem,  with  many  other  particulars  ;  why 

*  then,  fhould  they  omit  the  molt  important  and  wonder- 

*  ful  thing,  and  that  which  was  more   necefTary  to  be 

*  known  and  believed  than  any  other  in  the  whole 
«  narration  ?  Luke  has  not  forgotten  the  manger,  ia 


SECT.  VI.  248  CHA1^  lU 

*  which  the   new-born   Saviour  was  laid  ;  yet  he  has 

*  oniitted  the  incarnation  of  the  fupreme  God,  and  fays 

*  nothing  about  the  hypoltaticnl  union  of  the  Divine  and 

*  human   nature.      How  came    it   to   pafs,   that   Mark 

*  fliould  forget  the  whole  iiillory  of  ChriO's  birth,  which 

*  fhould  have  included  the  incarnation  ;  and  John,  whom 

*  they  will  have  to  fpeak  of  it,  fhould   pafs  over  it  fo 

*  flightly,  and  exprefs  himfelf  with  fo  much  obfcurity  ? — 

*  Again  :  How  came  the  apollles  to  make  no  mention 

*  of  fo  important  a  do(5lrine,  when  they  preached  the 

*  gofpel,  and  exhorted  men  to  believe  on  Jefus  Chrift  ; 

*  and,  to  induce  them  fo  to  do,    fet  his  majefty  before 

*  their  eyes  ?  Read  the  firft  fermon  that  Peter  preached 

*  to  the  people,  after  he  had  received  the  Holy  Gholi  ; 

*  the  fuccefs   of  which  was  fo  great,  that  about  three 

*  thoufand  fouls  believed  on  Jefus  Chrill  and  were 
'  baptized  :  Confider  alfo  his  fécond  exhortation  to  the 

*  people,  and  you  may  fee,  that  he  makes  no  mention  of 

*  the  incarnation  in  either  cf  them.      Nor  will  you  find 

*  it  in  any  of  this  apo(tIe*s  difcourfes  concerning  Chiift  ; 

*  whether  to  the  rulers  and  elders  of  the  people,  or  to 

*  Cornelius,  or  to  others.      Paul  fays  nothing  of  it,  in 

*  the  fynagogue  at  Antioch  ;  in  Areopagus,  at  Athens  j 

*  nor   before    Felix    and   Agrippa,    at  Cefarea.     Yet, 

*  certainly,  he  had  a  favourable  opportunity  at  Athens, 

*  to  have  explained  this  myflery,  when  he  talked  to  the 

*  Athenians  about  the  unknown  God.' 

In  anfwer  to  this  objection,  let  the  following  things 
be  confidered.  It  feems  very  extraordinary,  that  they 
who  have  fo  little  regard  for  the  Scripture,  fhould 
jTTiprove  its  very  fiknce  into  an  argument  againfl  us.  At 
cne  time  they  declare,  *  Though  the  Scripture  fhould 

*  exprefsly  and  repeatedly  fay,    that  God  was  made  man, 

*  they  would  not  believe  it  ;'  at  another,  they  argue 
againft  us  from  the  fuppofedj///<f«rÉ"  of  that  facred  Volume. 
Such  condudl  is  neither  candid  nor  confident. 

This  objedion  proceeds  on  a  very  dubious  principle. 
It  fuppofes   that   thofe   truths   which   are   abfolutely 


?SCT.  VI.  249  CHAP.   II. 

necefTary  to  be  known,  yet  very  diîïicalt  to  be  believed, 
are  moil  exprefsly  and  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the 
Scripture.  Bat  if  they  mean,  every  book  of  the 
Scripture,  the  maxim  is  falfe  ;  if  ihe  body  of  the 
Scripture,  the  reafoning  is  ufelefs  ;  for  wc  maintain, 
that  the  myflery  of  tne  incarnation  is  exprefsly  and 
repeatedly  contained  in  the  body  of  the  Scripture.  The 
maxim  underltood  in  the  former  fenfe  is  fo  evidently 
falfe,  that  we  need  no  other  ex?.mples  to  prove  it,  than 
thofe  which  are  mentioned  in  the  obje61ion.  The 
refurredion  of  the  dead  and  eternal  life,  fo  exprefsly 
revealed  in  the  gofpel,  are  neither  fo  clearly  nor  fo 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old  Teftament.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  work  of  creation  and  the  corduft  of 
Providence,  uhich  are  fo  repeatedly  and  ftrongly 
expreffed  in  the  Old  Teftament,  are  not  fo  frequently 
found  in  the  New. — B'Jt  muft  an  important  and  eflentia! 
truth  be  contained  in  all  the  books  of  the  Scripture,  or 
in  tv try  part  of  the  New  Teftament  ?  This  is  neither 
neceffary,  nor  pofTible.  It  is  not  necejfary:  becaufe,  as 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  given  us  for  the  rule  of  our  faith, 
not  any  particular  book,  but  the  whole  canon  of  the 
Scripture  ;  it  is  quite  fufHcient  if  the  necefTary  doc- 
trines be  found  in  the  volume  of  Revelation,  though 
they  may  not  be  included  in  every  particular  book. 
Nor  is  it  pojfîble:  for  in  the  Bible  there  are  feveral 
epifiles  and  books  too  much  contraâed,  to  contain 
all  that  is  necefTary  to  be  known,  believed,  and  per- 
formed. 

The  objedion  fuppofes,  that  a  truth  is  not  evidently 
contained  in  Scripture,  when  it  muit  be  inferred  by 
confequences.  But  here  the  objector  is  under  a  great 
miftake,  as  appears  from  the  condud  of  our  Lord  ; 
who  proves  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  by  a  pafîage  in 
the  pentateuch  ;  though  that  capital  truth  is  not  contained 
in  it,  in  exprefs  terms,  but  was  only  inferred  confc- 
quentiaily. — The  author  of  this  obje^lion  is  under  an 
equal  miflake,    when    he  fuppofes    that    thefe    truths  ; 


SECT.  VI.  250  CHA?.  ir. 

Jefus  Chrifl  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghoft — Our 
Lord  was  born  of  a  virgin  ;  are  of  lefs  importance  to 
be  known  and  believed,  ihaii  the  dodrine  of  the 
incarnation,  had  it  been  true.  For  fuppofîng  the  incarna- 
tion to  be  a  greater  myjiery,  than  the  conception  of 
Chrift  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  yet  the  latter  is  no  lefs 
neceflary  to  be  believed  than  the  former.  That  Jefus 
Ghrilt  came  not  into  the  world  by  ordinary  means,  is  a 
fad  fo  necefD-ry  to  be  known,  that  without  it  we  cannot 
be  affured,  either  of  the  myflery  of  the  incarnation,  or 
of  the  benefits  of  his  death.  For  if  the  humanity  of 
Jefus  had  not  been  free  from  original  gailt  and  original 
depravity,  it  could  neither  have  been  united  to  the  Divine 
Perfon  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  r.or  have  fufftred  a  death 
capable  of  expiating  the  fins  ot  mankind.  Tiiis  coa- 
fideiation  will  be  of  ufe  hereafter. 

But  may  we  not  retort  upon  our  adverfaries  ?  May 
not  the  filence  of  the  Scripture  be  improved,  v/ith  equal 
force,  againlt  the  conception  of  Chrift,  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghofi:,  and  his  birth  of  a  virgin  ?  Yet  thefe 
are  truths,  eflentially  neceflary  truths,  by  the  confeflion 
of  all  the  world.  Our  opponents  cannot  difpute  them 
any  more  than  we  ;  becaufe  the  conception  of  Chrill, 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  firfl  foundation,  accordin- 
to  them,  of  his  augufl  charafler.  The  Som  of  God. 
Nor  will  they  deny,  that  ancient  prophecy  would  have 
been  unfulfilled,  if  Jefus  had  not  been  born  of  a  virgin  *. 
Thefe  truths  are  alfo  abfolutely  neceflary.^-BeiideSj 
they  are  diflicuit  to  be  believed  :  for  there  have  been 
few  things  in  the  world  more  furprlfing,  than  to  hear 
of  a  man  born  of  a  zirgiri.-^We  may,  therefore,  put 
the  fame  quefHons  to  our  oppofers,  on  the  miraculous 
conception  and  birth  of  Chrift,  which  they  do  to  U3, 
on  the  incarnation.  We  afli,  then,  if  the  conception 
of  Chri(t  had  been  as  is  generally  fuppofed,  how  it  came 
to  pafs  that  Mark  fnould  pafs  it  over  in  fiknce  ?  Why 

*  Uwh  Yii.  14» 


S£CT.  Vî.  251  CHAP.  II. 

docs  not  John  mention  it  ?  Why  did  not  the  apoflles 
always  infilt  on  the  very  momentous  and  necefiaty  truth, 
vhcn  they  laboured  to  convert  iinners  to  Jehis  Chrift  ? 
Pwcad  the  firll  fermon  of  Peter  to  the  people,  after  !ie 
had  received  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  confider  airo  his  icc'.r:d 
clifcouiTe,  after  he  had  healed  the  lame  man,  who  lay 
at  the  gate  of  the  temple  ;  and  you  mu(t  foon  perceive, 
that  he  fa}  s  nothing  exprcfbly  about  the  miraculous 
conception  and  birth  of  his  Divine  Mader.  The  fame 
apoftle  fpeaks  afterwaids  of  Jefus,  to  the  rulers  and 
elders  of  the  people,  to  Cornelius  and  others  ;  but  fays 
not  a  word  of  the  afloniftiing  conception  and  wonderful 
birth  of  his  Lord.  Nor  does  Paul  fay  any  tiling  of 
thefe  ailonirtiing  faifts,  in  his  difcourfes  in  the  fynagogiie, 
at  Antioch,;  in  Areopagus,  at  Athens;  nor  before 
Felix  and  Agrippa.  But  ought  we  from  hence  to 
conclude,  that  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jefus  is  not 
a  fundamental  article  of  the  Chrillian  faith?  Of  this  our 
opponents  themfelves  will  judge. 

'  Yec,  they  will  fay,  but  Mathew  and  Luke  arc  not 
'  nient  on  this  particular.' — Granted  ;  nor  are  a//thefacred 
penmen  filent  concerning  the  incarnation.  We  produce 
the  exprefs'words  of  the  Huly  Ghoft,  who  informs  us; 
That  Chrift  is  "  Immanuel  ,*  God  with  us;"  that 
*^  the  myRery  of  godlinefsis  great,  God  WAS  manifest 
"  IN  THE  flesh;"  and  that  *•  the  Word  was  God, 
**  and  was  made  flesh."  To  what  purpofe»  then, 
is  that  enumeration  of  particular  partages,  which  the 
author  of  the  objection  has  made  ?  If  he  means,  that 
the  incarnation  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scripture, 
feecaufe  it  is  not  contained  in  the  partages  to  which  he 
refers  ;  we  reply,  His  induction  of  particulars  is  imper- 
fect, and  cannot  warrant  his  conclufion.  For  he  has 
cautioufly  omitted  thofc  partages  vyhich  we  produce,  in 
order  to  prove  our  fentiment.  But  if  he  only  intended 
to  colleft  the  occafions  on  which  he  fuppofes  it  was 
proper,  for  the  honour  of  Jefus  Chrill-,  that  the  infpired 
5vriters  fhould  have  mentioned  the  incarnation;  we  af].i 


SECT,  Vi.  ^S^  CHAP.   II. 

in  our  turn,  Why,  on  the  fame  occafions,  they  did  not 
mention  his  conception  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  birth 
of  a  virgin  ?  For  if,  according  to  our  principles,  the 
Son  of  God,  by  the  miracle  of  his  incarnalion,  became 
Immani:el  ;  Jcfus  Chriit,  according  tg  theirs,  became 
the  Son  of  God,  by  the  miracle  of  his  conception. 

The  petfeél  holinefs  of  Jefus  Chrill:  is  a  truth  eiTential 
to  the  Chriflian  religion,  and  a  dodrine  of  the  laft 
importance  to  our  fpiritual  comfort.  The  unerring 
writer  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  makes  all  our 
confolation  depend  upon  it.  "  For  fuch  an  high-prieft 
**  became  us,  who  is  holy,  harmlefs,  undefiled,  feparate 
"  from  fmners,  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens  : 
"  who  needeth  not  daily,  as  thofe  high-prielîs,  to  offer 
**  up  facrifce,  firll  for  his  own  fins,  and  then  for  the 
«•  people's."  Yet,  if  you  look  into  the  evangelical 
hiAory,  you  will  find  little,  very  little,  indeed,  relating 
to  this  capital  truth.  There,  to  your  amazement,  you 
hear  Jefus  Chrifl  refunng,  to  appearance,  the  epithet 
good;  when  he  fays  to  the  young  man,  <*  There  is  none 
"  good  but  one,  that  is  God.'*  You  find,  indeed,  that 
our  Lord  fays,  **  I  am  the  light  of  the  world  ;"  but 
you  mud  reafon  to  know,  whether  he  mean  the  light 
of  holinefs,  or  the  light  of  truth.  You  hear  him  faying, 
*'  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart  ;"  but  you  muft  leara 
by  inferences,  whether  his  meeknefs  and  humility  be 
attended  with  all  other  virtues  ;  and  alfo,  whether  thofe 
virtues  reCde  in  him  to  perfection.  You  may  hear  him 
afic  his  adverfaries,  v/itli  confidence,  "  Which  of  you 
♦*  convinceth  me  of  fin  ?"  and  this,  I  acknowledge, 
implies,  that  he  is  not  an  offender  like  men  in  common  ; 
but  yet  he  does  not  exprcfsly  fay,  *  I  am  without  fin.' 
— I  conclude,  therefore,  that  it  is  not  neceffary  the 
mod:  intereding  truths  fhould  be  contained  in  the 
Scripture,  in  exprefs  and  formal  terms;  and  that  it 
fuffices  to  infer  them  by  juft  and  reafonable  confcquence. 
For  though  we  had  not  been  favoured  wi^-h  the  epiftlie 
to  the  Hebrev/s  j  though  feveral  pafTages  in  other  epiltleSf 


SECT.    VI.  2^;^  LHAP.   IT. 

exprefsly  to  the  Gme  point,  had  never  been  read  by  us  ; 
and  though  we  had  never  heard  chat  ihofc  words  ia 
Ifaiah,  **  He  had  done  no  violence,  neither  was  anr 
*'  deceit  in  his  mouth,'*  related  to  Jefus  Chri(i  ;  yet  we 
fhould  have  been  aflured  that  he  v/as  perf«<î^ly  holy  anfi 
righteous  ;  both  by  the  analogy  of  faiih,  and  by  a 
nultitude  of  texts,  from  which  we  might  have  inferred 
the  important  confequence. — Hence  alfo  it  appear?, 
that  there  is  no  necelfity  for  a  capital  and  fundamental 
truth,  to  be  mentioned  in  every  page  of  the  Scripture, 
nor  yet  in  every  book  of  which  that  facred  Volume 
canfifts.  For  the  whole  oeconomy  of  falvatlon,  and  all 
cur  happinefs,  depend  on  the  confummatc  holinefs  of 
Jefus  Chrift  ;  and  yet  you  may  read  a  great  part  of 
the  Bible,  and  not  find  it  fo  much  as  once  mentioned. 
But,  more  dirc<5^1y  to  anfvver  this  objctftion,  it  may 
be  obferved  ;  That  the  facred  wriicrs  keep  a  myfleiicus 
flence,  on  fome  occaGons,  even  on  matters  of  great 
importance  ;  which  filence  may  be  attributed  to  various 
caufes.  Sometimes  to  the  nature  of  that  oeconomy  under 
which  they  v;rote.  So  Mofes  and  the  prophets  did  not 
fpeak  fo  clearly  of  the  life  to  come,  as  Jefus  ChrU]  ; 
b-^caufe  the  perfpicuiiy  of  Revelation,  in  this  rtfjiect> 
was  to  be  a  dilHnguifhing  cliarader  of  the  Mefiiah's 
appearance  ;  and  hfe  and  immortality  were  tc  be  revealed 
by  him.  Nor  was  it  agreeable  to  the  wifdom  of  God, 
that  Chrift,  in  his  perfonal  miniilry,  fhould  fpeak  f» 
clearly  concerning  the  fpirituality,  or  fo  fully  concerning 
the  mydeiics,  of  his  kingdom  ;  as  the  apoftles  did  after 
his  alcenfion,  when  led  into  all  the  truth  by  the  Holy 
Spiiit. — A-t  other  times  the  Spirit  of  wifdom  makes  ufe 
of  the  cleared:  and  cadefl  things,  to  lead  us  into  thofe 
"which  are  mere  abitrufe  and  difhcult.  The  great  things 
which  the  apoilles  were  called  to  declare,  were  foâs 
and  Joci titles  ;  fonie  of  which  dodrines  were  very 
myiterious.  The  former  were  obje»fts  of  fenfe  ;  the 
laiier  abflra(ft  and  Ipiritual.  Now  it  would  have  been 
prejx)(Ltrou$  for  ihern  to  have  recummended  matters  c-f 
Y 


SECT.  Vî.  '     254  CHAP,   il, 

tà^^,  by  (îrft  recommending  myflericus  doclilnes  :  becauf^ 
the  order  of  nature  ar.d  leafon  requires,  that  the  latter 
fhojld  be  recommended,  by  relating  and  authenticating 
:he  former.  If  only  matters  of  fad  had  been  neceflary 
to  be  laid  before  us,  the  four  gofpels  would  have  com- 
prifed  the  whole  of  the  New  Tefiament  ;  they  being 
the  hiflory  of  fuch  facets  as  are  necefl'ary  to  our  falvation, 
33 at  as,  in  the  grand  fchcme  of  falvation,  there  are 
myfterious  dodrines,  with  which  it  is  requifite  mankind 
fnouid  be  acquainted  ;  the  apoflles  were  inlpired  to  write 
the  other  parts  of  the  New  Teflanr.ent,  that  we  might 
be  informed  of  them.  And  if  fo,  it  is  far  from  being 
iirange  that  Peter,  in  his  firfl  ferinon,  after  he  had 
received  the  Koly  Ghoil,  fliould  erjiage  the  attention 
of  his  auditors,  by  making  remarks  on  that  Divine 
enufion,  the  effedts  of  which  were  fo  fenfible  and  fo 
wonderful,  without  faying  any  thing  about  the  incarna- 
tion. Nor  is  it  at  all  amazing  that  the  fame  apoftle, 
after  he  had  healed  the  poor  beggar  that  lay  at  the  gate 
of  the  temple,  and  perceived  the  adonilliment  of  the 
people,  fnouid  take  occafion  to  fpeak  of  our  Lord's 
refurredion,  in  whofe  name  he  wrought  the  miracle  ; 
and  that  he  fhould  infift  on  the  leading  circumHanccs  of 
the  life  and  death  of  his  Divine  Malkr,  as  being  adapted 
to  enlighten  their  minds  and  alarm  their  corfcicnces,  to 
foften  their  hearts  and  fubdue  their  pride — much  better 
'.îdapted,  to  anfwer  thefe  impotant  ends,  than  a  difcourfe 
on  the  myiierious  hypoftatical  union  would  have  been. 
The  faT^e  remark  may  be  made  on  the  condud  of  Paul, 
on  fimilar  occafions. — The  filence  objcded  againfi:  us 
is  frequently  to  be  afcribed  to  the  marvellous  conde- 
fccnfion  of  God,  in  proportioning  his  inllrudions  to 
our  capacities.  As  it  is  written,  **  I  have  yet  many 
*'  things  to  fay  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now." 
And  again,  "  We  have  many  things  to  fîiy  and  hard  to 
"  be  uttered,  feeing  ye  are  dull  of  hearing,"  Thefe 
affertions,  and  the  reifon  on  which  they  proceed,  fhew 
the  propriety  of  Peter's  condud  and   that    of  othe;- 


SJECT.   VÎ.  2\^  CHAP.  II. 

apodles,  when  fpeaking  to  finners  not  yet  converted, 
or  to  fuch  as  had  but  jult  received  the  light  of  the  gofpel; 
whom  they  treat  as  infants,  in  the  giace  of  God  and  the 
knowledge  of  Chrift,  rather  than  as  adults;  laying  before 
them  the  plaine(t  truths,  and  rcfcrving  the  more  abllrufe 
till  a  fitter  feafon  occurred. 

The  objeâion  boldly  fuggeil^y  that  the  Scripture  is 
entirely  filent,  as  to  the  dodrine  ot^the  incarnation.  But 
this  is  a  great  mifiake.  For  we  find  hardly  any  remaric- 
able  occciiion  to  make  it  known,  but  the  Holy  Spirit 
improves  it  for  that  purpofe.  Jefus,  at  his  birth,  is 
called  "  God  with  us."  At  his  baptifm,  he  is  honoured 
m  fuch  a  manner  as  cannot  agree  to  a  mere  creature. 
In  the  hillory  of  hs  lift  and  minillry,  by  the  evangeliils, 
\hc  names  and  attrihvircs,  the  works  and  vvorlhrp  of 
God,  are  frequently  afcnlvd  to  hir.i.  And  the  a;.'oliîes» 
in  their  invaluable  writings,  av5t  in  a  fimilar  way,  by 
dtfcribing  and  treating  him  as  the  true  God. 

The  objeL^ion  alT^rts,  that  the  pafiages  adduced  to 
prove  our  dodrine  are  fiich,  that  we  are  obliged  lo 
draw  feveral  conclufions  before  they  can  ferve  our  turn. 
And  what  if  they  were  ?  this  would  not  invalidate  the 
argument  formed  upon  them,  provided  the  conclufions 
be  fairly  drawn.  But  it  is  a  miitake.  For  the  Scripture 
exprefsly  aflerts,  that  Jefus  Chri(l  is  "  God  manifelled 
"  in  the  flelli" — That  he  is  "  the  Word  :"  that  '*  tht; 
**  Word  was  God  :"  and  that  "  the  Word  was  made 
**  flefii."  Here  we  need  only  take  the  natural  fenfc 
of  the  ex'pieflions,  without  any  further  reafoning,  to 
find  the  incarnation.  For  the  terni^¥(/i>  is  taken,  either 
for  the  lody,  meiely;  wliich  cannot  be  the  meaning 
here,  becaufe  Chriil-  net  only  afiumed  a  body,  but  a  bodv 
united  to  a  fpirit  :  or  it  fignihes //«;  but  this  c.inp^f.  b; 
intended,  becaufe  Jefus  afiumed  a  holy,  not  a  finful 
nature:  or  it  muli:  fignify  the  human  nature;  and  this, 
undoubtedly,  is  the  lenfe  of  the  term.  The  obvious 
meaning,  therefore,  of  the  text  is;  God  was  manifelt 
in  the  human  nature.  If  we  muft  reafon,  it  is  only  for 
Y   2 


rrCT.   VI.  256  CHAP,   iiu 

•be  fenre  of  the  terms  ;  not  that  we  may  infer,  by 
ronfeq'jences,  sl  truth  which  lay  concealed.  For  theie 
two  propofitions,  God  nuas  made  man — God  ivas  manifefi 
tn  the  human  nature — are  perfeâly  equivalent. 


CHAPTER     III. 

An  ObjeAiori  from  John  xvii.  3    anfwered. 

VJNE  of  the  principal  arguments  in  favour  of 
''  c  Socinian  liypothe^s,  is  formed  on  thofe  words  of 
unr  Lord  ;  **  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  knov/ 
"  tiice  the  only  true  God,  and  Jefus  Chrid  whom  thoa 
"  lud  fent." — *  Nobody  queftions,  fays  Crellius,  but 
'  that,  by  the  true  God,  mult  be  underftood  the  Supreme 

*  God.     When,  therefore,  Jefus  Chrift  reprefecits  hi» 

*  Father  to   as,   as  the  only  true  God;  it  follows,   that 

*  none  bat  the  Father  is  the  Supreme  God.* 

Before  we  return  a  direct  anfv/er,  it  may  not  be 
invproper  to  make  a  few  general  remarks.  Let  it,  then, 
ht  here  obferved,  That  as  our  Lord  may  be  confidered, 
cither  w  a  ftate  of  the  loweft  humiliation,  or  in  a  ItaLe 
<;f  the  highed  glory  ;  fo  he  is  varioufly  reprefented  to 
n?,  accoiding  to  thefe  two  very  different  conditions, 
Accordiftgly  he  afTumes,  in  reference  to  the  former, 
fuch  characters  as  exprefs  his  abafement  ;  and,  with  a 
view  to  the  latter,  fuch  as  denote  his  exaltation.  In 
tfce  time  of  his  humiliation,  he  calls  himfelf  "  the  Son 
*'  of  man,'*  much  more  frequently  than  '*  the  Son  of 
"  God  :"  but,  after  he  was  glorified,  his  apolUes 
conftantly  call  him,  *'  the  Son  of  God  ;"  hardly  ever, 
•*  the  Son  of  man."  Before  his  refurredtion,  his 
difcipîes  thought  they  faid  a  great  deal  in  this  confeflion 
on  th:ir  faith,  **  Thou  art  Chiilh  the  Son  of  the  living 


.^ECT.  VI.  257  CHAP.  III. 

**  God  :"  bat,  their  light  increafing  with  his  glory, 
when  they  faw  him  rifen  from  the  dead,  one  of  them 
faid,  **  My  Lord,  and  my  God!'*  When  Jefus 
taught  his  difciples  to  piay,  he  gave  them  an  admirable 
pattern  of  devotion  in  what  is  called,  *  The  Lord's 
*  prayer  ;'  yet  in  that  excellent  diredory,  the  name  of 
Chrid  is  not  once  mentioned.  But  when  the  Redeemer 
is  juil  leaving  the  world,  and  is  going  to  be  glorified, 
he  fays  to  his  difciples  ;  "  Whatfoever  ye  fnall  aHv  thj 
*'  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you."  And, 
after  his  exaltation,  the  church  places  her  hope  of 
Divine  acceptance,  in  devotional  fervices,  entirely  in 
his  interceflion  ;  addrclTmg  her  prayer  and  praifes  to  the 
Father,  through  the  hands  of  her  Divine  Saviour  only. 
**  Unto  Him  be  glory  in  the  church,  by  Chrift  Jefus, 
**  throLighoat  all  ages — Ye  are  an  holy  prieQhood,  to 
**  offer  up  fpiritual  facrifices,  acceptable  to  God,  by  Jcfiis 
**  Chrill — If  any  man  fin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
*'  Father,  JefusChrift  the  righteous." — Thefe  things  con- 
fidered,  it  is  no  wonder  that  Jefus  ChriPi,  when  fpeakin^; 
of  hirafelf  in  the  time  of  his  humiliation,  fliould  fpeak 
fuitably  to  that  condition  ;  nor  that,  in  the  evangelical 
hidory,  the  Father  is  more  frequently  called  God,  than 
he  ;  nor  yet  that  oar  Mediator,  on  various  occafions, 
(hould  fpeak  of  himfelf,  as  fubjeft  to  his  Father  ;  and 
cf  the  Father,  as  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  and 
t'lc  fovereign  Manager  cf  ail  events. 

Arguments  drawn  from  the  filence  of  the  Scripture, 
sre,  in  fome  cafes  excellent  ;  but  in  others  impertinent 
end  entirely  fahe.  Will  our  opponents  affert,  for 
inîlance,  that  Chrill:  is  cot  the  rsJeemer ;  becaufe  he 
taught  his  difciples  the  duties  of  morality,  when  on  the 
mount,  without  expvefsly  mentioning  the  work  of 
tedemption  ?  Or,  dare  they  afhrm,  that  He  is  not  an 
intevcijtor  \^\Û\  God;  becaufe,  when  teaching  his  difciples 
to  pray,  he  does  not  always  dired^  them  to  afk  the 
blellings  they  vv'ant,  in  his  name  ? — Creliius,  then,  gains 
RO  advantage  to  his  caufe,  by  remarking  ;  «  That  Jefus 

^3 


SECT.  VI.  258  CHAP.  III. 

*  Chrifl,  when  fpeaking  of  himfelf  on  various  occafions, 

*  fays  nothing    greater  ;    nor    yet    his    apofUes,    when 

*  fpeaking  of  him,  than  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.' 
For  as,  on  fome  occafions,  Chrift  fpake  of  himfelf  as  a 
man  ;  as,  on  others,  he  fpake  of  himfelf  as  a  prophet, 
without  faying   any   thing   of  his   kingly,  or    prieftly, 

*  ffice  ;  and  yet  we  cannot  with  any  appearance  of  reafon 
conclude  from  hence,  that  he  is  neither  king,  nor  prieft, 
ror  mediator  between  God  and  man  :  fo  he  might 
fpeak  of  himfelf,  and  the  apoflles  might  reprefent  him, 
.-IS  a  prieft  and  a  king,  as  mediator  and  the  Son  of 
God,  on  certain  occafious  ;  withoutlfpeaking  exprefsly  of 
ins  Divinity,  and  yet  not  militate,  in  the  leaff,  againfl 
it. 

To  anfwer  more  diredly.  If  our  adverfaries  mean 
to  prove,  from  this  paflage,  that  Jefus  Chrift  is  not  God, 
they  acH:  inconfiftently  ;  for  they  acknowledge  that  lie 
bears  the  name  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  Nay,  if  they 
would  hence  make  it  appear,  that  he  is  not  the  true 
Cod,  they  contradiâ  themfelves.  For  Socinus  expre/Tes 
himfelf  in  the  following  remarkable  words.    *  It  is  very 

*  jalfe  that  we  fhould  openly  declare,  Jefus  Chrift  is  not 
'  true  God.  We  profefs  to  fay  the  contrary,  and  declare, 

*  that  HE  IS  TRUE  God,  in  feveral  of  our  writings,  as 

*  well  in  the  Latin,  as  in  the  Polifti  language  *.' — Jefus 

*  Chrift,  fays  Smalcius,  raay  be  called,  with  a  fovereign 

*  right.  Our  God,  and,  The  true  God  ;  and  fo  he 

*  really   is.*     And,    in  another   place,    he    affures  us, 

*  That  Jefus  Chrift  is  God,  in  the  most  perfect 
«  MANNER  :  PerfeR'iJfmo  modo.' — If  then,  Jefus  Chrift 
be  God,  the  true  God,  and  God  in  the  mod 
PERFECT  manner  ;  and  if  this  be  the  fentiment  of  our 
opponents,  what  do  they  mean  by  adducing  and  arguing 
vpon  this  paflage  ?  Is  it  their  intention  to  prove,  by 
taking  the  v/ords  in  their  greateft  rigour  of  fignification, 
that  Chrift  is  not  the  true  God,  and  that  the  fublime  titk 

*  Seciî».  ad  Hid.  p.  49. 


SECT.  VI.  ^59  CHAT,  in» 

belongs  only  to  the  Father?  But  this  is  diametiically 
oppollte  to  their  own  declarations.  Let  them,  then, 
£rft  agree  with  themfelves  ;  after  which  it  will  be  time 
enough  for  us  to  attempt  a  coalition  with  them.  It  is 
proper,  however,  to  return  a  more  particular  anfwer  to 
their  objedion. 

Paul  fays,  "  t  determined  not  to  know  any  thin^ 
«'  among  you,  fave  Jefus  Chrifl,  and  him  crucified." 
Now,  it  is  evident,  if  we  underlland  this  declaration  in 
the  full  rigour  of  its  literal  fenfe,  that  the  apodle  excludes 
every  objeét  from  the  dodrine  of  falvation,  befides  his 
crucified  Lord  j  but  will  our  oppofers  from  hence  infer, 
that  the  Divine  Father  is  excluded  from  that  objed  which 
the  apoflle  determined  to  know,  in  contradi{Hn(51ion  to 
all  other  things  ?  No,  doubtlefs.  Both  they  and  we 
mufl  except  the  Father  ;  becaufe  we  find,  from  other 
paffp.ges  of  Scripture,  that  the  knowledge  of  liim  is 
abfolutcjy  neceffdry  to  eternal  felicity.  Were  we  to 
tike  the  words  of  Paul  io  their  Hricftly  liieral  meaning, 
they  would  be  diametrically  oppofae  lo  the  declaration 
cf  his  Divine  Mafter,  in  the  text  which  is  now  under 
confideratlon,  and  which  our  adverfaries,  with  fo  muck 
confidence,  objedl  again!!  us.  For  the  spofile  fays,  we 
r.vjft  propofe  nothing  to  ourfelves,  as  the  objed  of  the 
dodrine  of  falvation,  but  the  crucified  Jefus  :  while  his 
Lord  mod  folemnly  afkrts  the  neceflity  of  knowing  tht 
Father,  in  order  to  our  future  happinefs.  Coufequently, 
thefe  aflertions  cannot  be  both  true,  if  undcrftood  in  the 
rigour  of  their  literal  meaning  ;  but  they  ate  eafily  rccon» 
ciled  by  fuppofing  that  Paul,  when  he  determines  **  to 
**  know  nothing  but  Jefus  Chiift  and  him  crucified," 
doe^  not  mean  to  exclude  the  Father  ;  who,  being  one 
with  the  Son,  is  revealed  by  him,  and  known  at  thç 
fame  time  with  him.  And  if  our  adverfaries  themfelves 
be  obliged  to  adopt  this  method  of  interpretation,  when 
thefe  two  pafîîiges  are  to  be  reconciled  j  why  will  they 
not  admit  of  it,  when  we  are  called  to  reconcile  the 
text  bçfcrç  us,  v/hich,  according  to  them  alTcrt^,  that 


SECT.  VI.  ù,6o  ciiAr.  in. 

«  the  Fathef  only  is  the  true  God  ;'  with  other  paflages 
of  Scripture  which  have  taught  them,  *  that  Jefus  Chrill 

*  is  the  true  God  ?'  If,  when  Paul  fays,  '*  I  determined 
•*  not  to  know  any  thing,  fave  Jefus  Chrift  and  hinfi 
**  crucified,"  we  except  the  Father  ;  becaufe  we  are 
taught,  by  the  fame  unerring  Spirit,  that  life  eternal 
conflits,  not  only  in  knowing  Chrill  crucified,  but  alfo 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  :  is  it  reafonable,  when 
the  Scripture  calls  the  Father  "  the  only  true  God  ;'* 
that  we  fhould  except  Jefus  Chrifl  ;  there  being  other 
pafTages  of  holy  Writ  which  declare,  even  by  the 
confefiion  of  our  opponents,   that  he  is  the  true  God  ? 

It  is  very  remarkable,  that  the  mofl  ingenious  of  our 
antagonifls,  when  handling  this  argument,  deprive  them- 
ftlves  of  all  advantage  from  it,  by  the  conceflions  which 
ihey  are  obliged  to  make.  Crellius  obferves,  on  the 
pafiage,  *  That  the  defign  of  Chrift  was  not  to  deny, 

*  that  the  idols,  or  gods  of  the  Heathens,  were  really 

*  idols,  or  gods  of  the  Heathens;   but  only  to  deny, 

*  that  they  were  the  true  God.*  And  acknowledges  that, 
if  we  conf^der  the  conftru6lion  of  the  words,  we  ough.t 
TiOt  to  cohneft  the  term  only,  with  thecy  Father.     *  We 

*  would  not,  fays   he,  have   any   one  charge   us   witlv 

*  fuppofing,    merely   on    account   of  the    grammatical 

*  condruftion  of  the  words,  that  the  term  on/y  ought  to 
«  be  conneded  with  ilee^  or  ihee  Father;   for  the  article 

*  before  the  adverb  only  will  not  bear  it  ;  and,  therefore, 

*  We  T.uft  undcrRand  the  verb,  to  be.      For,  othervv'ife 

*  it  were  as  if  Jefus  Chrifî  had  faid,   To  knoiu  that  thou 

*  only  art  the  true  God;  which,  though  true  in  itfelf,  is 

*  very  far  from  being  the  fenfe  of  this  pafTage  '*.' 

Such  concelfions,  from  one  who  holds  the  firfl  place 
among  our  opponents,  are  very  confiderable  :  nay,  they 
are  fufHcient  to  decide  the  queftion  in  our  favour.  For 
when  we  produce  a  text  of  Scripture,  in  proof  of  any 
particular  doctrine  ;  we  reafon,  either  from    the  bare 

*  Crell.  De  D<o  uno  Patre.  Scdl.  I.  Cap.  I.  p,  IJ,  ig. 


S£CT.   VI»  261  CKAP.   Ill, 

fignification  of  the  words,  or  from  the  occaHon  on  ^vhich 
tiiey  were  uttered.  If,  then,  we  here  difpure  fioiii  the 
Oicafion  of  the  words,  our  onpofers  will  prove  nothing 
againd  us  :  for  they  allow  that  Chriit,  in  this  place, 
contrails  the  true  God,  with  the  idols  of  the  Heathen; 
v-iiich,  though  it  utterly  exclude  every  fiditious  deity, 
yet  does  not  in  the  leuft  militate  a^ainlî  our  Immanuel's 
claim  of  Divinity.  Nor  will  our  adverfaries  have  any 
advantage,  by  attending  to  the  bare  fignïjicatïon  of  the 
words  :  for  they  cannot  infer  from  thence,  that  tho 
Father  only,  to  the  exclufion  of  Jefus  Chrill,  is  th.; 
true  God  ;  without  conneiTilng  the  adverb  only^  with 
thee,  Father;  which  CreUius  declares  Uiey  do  not 
attempt. 

The  pafTage  before  us,  far  from  attributing  Deity  to 
the  Faùier,  iti  oppolition  to  the  Son,  evidently  afcribes 
llic  infinite  honour  to  them  both.  For  the  fécond 
member  of  the  propofition  is  equivalent  to  this  ;  That 
they  may  know  that  He  v/hom  thou  hafl:  fent  is  alfo  the 
true  God.  And  the  meaning  of  the  whole  text  is  ; 
That  they  may  know  thee  tHe  only  true  God,  with  Him 
whom  thou  haft  fent. — As  if  one  fhould  fay  to  the 
emperor  ;  This  is  the  welfare  of  Hungary,  that  they 
may  know  thee  to  be  the  only  true  king,  and  arch-dukc 
Jofeph,  whom  thou  haft  appointed  over  them.  Which 
propofition  would  be  equivalent  to  this  ;  That  they  may 
know  thee  the  only  true  king,  with  arch-duke  Jofeph 
thy  fon. 

Though  v/e  might  exemplify  this  way  of  fpeaking,  by 

multitudes  of  inftances  in  profane  authors,  yet  we  fhall 

content  ourfelves  with   producing  two  from   the  Holy 

Scriptures.     When  Chrill  fays  to  his  difclples,  ♦*  Abide 

*'  in  me,  and  1  in  you  ;"  the  verb,  abidcy  is  neceffarily 

underllood  in  the  fécond  member  of  the  propofition, 

m.       thus:  Abide  in  me,  and  I  will  abide   in  you.      And 

B-      when    Paul    fays,    *♦  Though    ye    have    ten    thoufand 

■2     "  ini^ruders  in  Chiift,  yet  not  many  fathers,"  for  {a 

HL   it  is  literaily  in  the  original  ;  v,'e  muft  ^ilfo  repeat,  in  ti^e 

1 


SECT.  VI.  262  CHAP.  III. 

fécond  member  of  the  proportion,  what  is  expreifed  in 
the  firft,  after  this  manner  :  Though  ye  have  ten  thou- 
fand  inrtru<5lers  in  Chrilt,  yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers 
in  Chrilt.  This  it  is  manifefl,  is  the  fenfe  of  the 
pafiage.  So,  in  thefe  words,  *'  That  they  might  know 
*'  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jefus  Chriil  whom  thou 
**  haft  fent  ;"  we  mu(t  repeat,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
proportion,  what  iâ  exprefTed  in  the  former,  thus  :  That 
they  may  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  that  Jefus 
Chrift,  whom  thou  haft  fent,  is  the  true  God  with  thee. 
For  when  it  is  faid,  in  the  fécond  branch  of  the  propo- 
fition,  **  AND  Jefus  Chrift  whom  thou  haft  fent  ^"  it  is 
natural  to  aflc.  What  of  him  ?  To  which  the  anfwer  is. 
That  they  may  know  Him  also  to  be  that  only  true 
God. 

Our  opponents  allege  tiie  following  text,  on  this 
occafion  ;  "  Who  is  the  blef^ed  and  only  potentato>  the 
<*  King  of  kings  and  Lord  cf  lords  :  0  fiôvoç  i^ù^v  a^a.- 
«<  YXT/ay,  the  only  having  immortality."  But  as  thefe 
laft  words,  when  reduced  to  an  ordinary  confirue'^ion, 
are  thus  read,  "  Who  only  hath  immortality  ;*'  fo  our 
adverfaries  will  have  it  that  thefe  roy  fAoroy  <x..\)i^iylyBioy^ 
fhould  be  thus  read,  *  Who  only  is  the  true  God.*  B?.. 
this  text  and  criticifm  will  be  of  little  fervice  to  their 
caufe.  Nay,  they  could  hardly  have  produced  an 
inftance  more  unfavourable  to  it.  For  it  appears  from 
the  context,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  glorious  perfon 
here  intended.  As,  therefore,  when  he  is  called,  **  the 
«'  bleffed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings  and 
*'  Lord  oi'  lords,  who  only  hath  immortality/'  thé 
Father  is  not  excluded  from  an  inteieft  in  thofe  auguil 
titles  and  the  pertcclions  lignificd  by  them  :  fo,  had  thé 
Father  been  called  the  only  true  God,  it  would  not  have 
fol!ov/ed,  that  the  Son  is  excluded  from  being  a  Perfoa 
in  the  Deity  ;  feeing  he  bears  the  fame  fublime  character, 
with  other  titles  of  equal  grandeur. 

But  there  is  an  çbvious  and  e/Tential  diîTerence  bctweert 
the  two  paflages/    In  the  example  adduced,  by  CrcUiusj 


SECT.  VI.  26^  GHAP.  Illf 

**  the  only  having  immortality,"  is  a  nominative  which 
does  not  de;^end  on  the  verb,  but  the  verb  depends  on 
the  nominative  ;  whereas,  in  the  pafiage  before  us,  **  the 
*'  only  true  God,'*  is  an  accufative,  and  depends  on  this 
verb,  "  that  they  may  knov/  ;"  an  accufative,  I  fay, 
.which  ought  to  be  conneékd,  not  only  with  ihee,  but 
3.Ifo  with  the  following  accufative,  **  JefusChrilt  whom 
**  thou  iiall  feat."  This,  it  is  evident,  entirely  alters 
the  cife  — Beiides,  with  Vvhat  confiftency  could  this 
author  render  the  text,  *  That  they  may  know  thee, 
*  who  only  art  the  true  God  j'  after  he  had  confefled, 
that  the  adverb  onlyy  docs  not  relate  merely  to  the 
pronoun  tbecy  as  has  been  obf^rvcd  ? 

Further  :  I  demand  of  cur  opponents,  how  they 
would  reduce  this  propofition  ;  That  they  may  know 
thee  the  true  God.  and  Jefus  Chrift  ?  Would  they  not, 
jf  ingenuous,  reduce  it  thus  ;  That  they  may  know  thee 
for  the  true  God,  thee,  and  Jefus  ChriR  ?  When  I  form 
thefe  propofitions  ;  That  they  may  know  thee,  the  only 
wife,  and  Jefus  Chrift — Thee,  the  only  immortal,  and 
Jefus  Chriil: — Thee,  the  only  king,  and  Jefus  Chrift. — 
no  one  would  ever  fuppofe,  that  1  intend  to  exclude  the 
Lord  Redeemer  from  wifdom,  immortality,  and  royalty. 
On  the  contrary,  every  one  would  immediately  fee,  that 
I  comprehend,  in  thefe  propofitions,  the  wifdom,  the 
immortality,  and  the  royalty  of  the  one  and  the  other. 
Why,  then,  fhould  any  perfon  form  a  different  judgment 
of  this  propofition,  which  is  perfedly  fimilar  ;  l'hat  they 
may  know  thee  the  only  true  God)  and  Jefus  Chrift  i 
For  thefe  v/ords,  -'  whom  thou  had  fent,"  do  not  in  the 
Icart  alter  the  nature  of  the  propofition. 

V/hen  our  opponents  expvefs  the  prof  ofition  tiius. 
That  they  may  know  thee,  who  art  the  only  true  God, 
— it  is  neceiTary  to  inquire,  whether  the  term  only  is  10 
be  conne»5lcd  with  the  pronoun  i/jâey  or  with  the  noun 
GoJ.  For  if  the  ivord  onfy  be  joined  with  t/jee^  that  is, 
the  Father  ;  it  indicates,  that  the  Father  only  is  the 
ivue  God:  but,  if  it  be  conneâed  with  the  teici  G^i/, 


SECT.  Vï.  264  CHAP.   Iir, 

ic  declares  the  FAther  to  be  that  God,  who  is  the  on!-/ 
true  one.  To  fee  which  of  thefe  interpretations  ought 
to  be  preferred,  we  need  only  to  confult  the  original. 
For  there,  it  is  obfervable,  the  article  does  not  Hand 
immediately  either  before  Go^/,  or  true  God;  but  before 
thefe  three  terms,  only  true  God.  If  the  original  were, 
Ci  /xi'/oY  TGV  ahyidiyor  0{&y,  the  meaning  would  be,  That 
they  may  know  thee  only,  the  true  God.  Which 
propofition  might  be  reduced  to  this  ;  That  they  may 
know  thee,  who  only  art  the  true  God.  But  the  pen 
of  infpiration  has  recorded  it  thus  ;  «ri  tqv  ju'cror  olkh- 
S/KCK  SicY,  "  that  they  may  know  thee,  the  only  true 
*'  God  :'*  the  figniScation  of  which  is  plainly  this,  That 
they  may  know  that  thou  art  the  only  true  God.  Now 
he  v-'ho  fays.  The  Father  is  that  God  who  is  the  only 
true  one,  afferts  nothing  inconfiftent  with  our  fentiments. 
For  he  who  fays,  the  Father  is  Cod;  fays  alfo,  the 
Father  is  the  only  true  God.  And  fo  when  we  fay,  Jefus 
Chrid  is  God,  we  afTert,  that  He  is  the  only  true  God  ; 
becaufe  we  have  no  idea  of  two  Gods.  If,  then,  the 
Scripture  do  not  militate  againfl:  the  Deity  of  Chrift,  in 
faying,  that  the  Father  //  God;  it  afferts  nothing  incon- 
làllent  with  that  capital  truth  when  it  afîirms,  that  the 
Father  is  the  only  true  God, 

But  the  fenfe  of  the  paflage  will  be  more  apparent, 
and  its  confiflency  with  our  dodtrine  more  evident,  if 
we  confider,  the  occafion  of  the  words — a  parallel 
pafiage — that  equality  on  which  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  here  placed — and  the  principal  terms  of  which  the 
remarkable  text  confifts. — The  occafion  of  the  words. 
It  was  evidently  in  oppofition  to  the  corrupt  theology  of 
the  Heathens,  t^t  Chrift  thus  expreifcd  himfeif.  As 
if  he  had  faid  ;  The  Gentiles  perifli,  becaufe  they  have 
no  knowledge  of  any  but  fajfe  gods  ;  but  it  is  life  eternal 
to  know  thee  the  true  God,  in  oppofition  to  idols,  and 
Jcfus  Chrift  thy  Son.  This  is  quite  confident  with  our 
bypothefis.  For  who  does  not  perceive,  that  the  words 


SLCT.   VI.  265  CKAP.   111. 

of  the  text  are  limited  by  the  occafion  of  them  ?  Crellius, 
indeed,  fays,  '  The  (enfe  of  a  difcourfe  is   not  always 

♦  determined  by  the  occafion  of  it  ;  and   it  frequently 

*  happens,  that  we  deliver  general  exprellions  on  a 
•particular  occafion.* — That  this  is  the  cafe  \n  fomc 
inftances,  we  freely  allow  ;  but  that  it  is  always  thus, 
our  learned  opponent  dares  not  affirm.  We  have  feveral 
examples  of  each  kind,  in  the  evangelical  hiilory.  So 
\vhen  Chriit  fnys,  immediately  before  he  raifed  Lazarus 
from  the  dead  ;  *'  I  am  the  ref-irrcvflion  and  the  life. 
*'  He  that  believeth  in  mc,  though  he  were  dead  yet 
*'  ih.tU  he  live" — And  when,  upon  his  difciples 
Ihewing  him  the  temple,  he  faid,  *'  Deftroy  this  temple, 
*'  and  in  three  days  I  will  rrjfe  it  up" — it  is  manifelt 
that,  on  thcfe  particular  occalions,  he  delivers  general 
exprefhons,  which  are  not  limited  by  thefubje*5ts  of  which 
he  fpcaks.  But  then  this  is  not  aîivays  the  cafe.  For 
example  :  When  Jefus  faid  to  Peter,  *'  Ble/led  art  thou 
*'  Simon  Barjona  ;  for  flefh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
"  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven  ;"  will 
Creil'-us  afHrm,  that  the  expreHions  are  not  limited  by 
the  occafion  on  which  they  were  fpoken  ?  Will  he  aflert, 
that  by  //,  or  thefe  things,  the  good  corifeilion  which 
Peter  had  juft  made,  is  not  to  be  underflood  ? 

It  being  certain,  then,  that  the  fenfe  of  a  period  is 
fumetlmes  limited,  and  fometimes  not  limited,  by  the 
occafion  of  it  ;  we  mali  inquire,  under  which  of  thefe 
two  clalTcs  the  text  in  queftion  fhould  be  placed.  That 
the  fenfe  of  it  ought  to  be  limited  to  the  occafion  of  the 
words,  is  evident  to  me  from  this  confideration  ;  Tliere 
is  a  d'iuhle  aUufion  in  it.  The  firfl.  is  in  thefe  words, 
*•  This  is  life  eternal."  The  fécond  in  thefe,  "  The 
♦'  only  true  God."  In  the  latter  of  thefe  claufcs,  Chrifl 
fpeaks  in  ailufion  to  the  falfe  divinities  of  the  Heathens. 
In  ihc  former^  he  makes  eternal  happinefs  confill,  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  God;  in  alluiion,  and  in  oppofitioa 
to  the  Hate  of  Heathens  ;  who  were  loll:,  by  having  only 
falfe  objects  of  worlliip,  and  by  not  knowing  the  true 
Z 


SLcr,  VI.  26G  cHai».  îiî-, 

God.  A  jîfi^q^e  allufion  to  the  occ^Hon  on  which  th^ 
\vords  were  uttered,  would  hiive  been  fufTicient  to  limit 
ihcir  nieanin^^  to  ihiit  occafion  ;  and  if  fo,  the  paflage 
mui't  undoubtedly  be  underftood,  according  to  its  /it-o- 
yc/A/ulIiifion,  in  wliich  the  force  and  fpirit  of  it  corii(L 
This  double  allafion,  therefore,  limiiing  tiie  fenfe  of  the 
words,  requires  us  to  explain  them  thr.s:  Tiiat  they  may 
know  tiiee  the  only  true  God,  in  oy.polltion  to  the  falfe 
gods,  who  have  betrayed  the  Heathens  into  a  fatal  error; 
Ibr  in  the  knowledge  of  Thee  eternal  life  ccnfiils, 

*  But,   fays  our  opponent,    fappcfe  any  one  fhould 

*  imagine,  that  Peter,  James,  or  John,  is  of  the  fame 
'  eilence  with  the  eternal  Father  ;  mi<^ht  we  not  correft 

*  and  confute  him  by  this  text  ?  And  could  the  force  of 

*  the  paflage  be  eluded  by  faying  ;  The  dsfigii  of  Chrid 

*  was  only  to  exclude  the  £<5titious  deiiies  of  the  Hea* 

*  thens  :' — I  reply  ;  Peter  is  far  from  being  in  the  fame 
predicament  with  Jefas  Chriit.  He  is  not  God;  nor 
is  h^  cciL'cdGody  and  the  true  God,  in  the  facred  Scrip- 
tures ;  yet  all  this  is  alVirmed  of  the  Lord  Redeemer,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit:  nay,  as  before  obferved,  our  adver^ 
faries  themfeives  acknowledge  him  under  thefe  Divine 
charaders.  Peter  is  far  from  being  iovefled  with  thé 
names  and  attributes,  the  prerogatives  and  honours  of 
God  ;  but  his  Lord,  as  we  have  already  proved,  has 
them  all  afcribed  to  him,  by  the  pen  of  Infpiration. — ■- 
Again  :  The  words  were  fpoken  of  the  Father  and  of 
Jcfus  Chriit  ;  not  of  the  Father  and  of  Peter.  Nor 
was  it  necefTary  that  this  pafiage  fhould  be  adapted  to 
confute  every  wild  and  monftrous  opinion,  that  might 
be  embraced  on  the  fublime  fubjedl  of  the  Godhead* 
For  if  Peter,  fc^r  inliance,  Ihould  imagine  that  he  is  the 
Father,  who,  according  to  our  opponents,  is  the  true 
God,  in  contradiftinâion  to  the  Son  ;  I  demand, 
whether  they  could  convince  him  of  his  error  and  blaf- 
phemy,  by  confronting  him  with  this  text  ?  *  It  is  I,  he 

*  would  fay,  who  am  the  Father  ;  and  the  pafTage  you 

*  produce  afferts  my  eternal  Divinity — reprefeats  me  as 


^ECT.  VI.  ifi"]  CHAP.   111. 

*  the  true  God.' — But  v.erc  Peter  in  the  fame  cireur-.- 
fiances  with  Jcfus  Chrill  ;  did  we  coniider  him  as  having 
exi(ted  before  the  world  began  ;  as  being  the  Creator  of 
heaven  and  earth  ;  as  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Fir(i: 
and  the  Lad — weie  he,  by  unerring  writers,  called 
QoD,  the  MIGHTY  God,  the  great  God,  the  truk 
God,  and  God  blfss^d  for  ever  ;  were  he  repre- 
fented,  as  equal  with  the  Father,  and  as  one  with  the 
Father  ; — could  we,  in  fuch  a  cafe,  reafonablv  rcfuft: 
him  the  title  o( true  Gofi,  while  wc  admitted  the  Divine 
infpiration  of  the  Scriptuics? 

Our  interpretation  of  this  text  will  be  further  con- 
firmed, if  we  compare  it  with  the  following  parallc! 
pajjage.  *'  The  ion  uf  God  is  coiiic,  ar.d  l":i'.h  given  vs 
•'  an  underrtanding  that  we  may  know  Him  that  is  tine; 
*'  and  we  are  in  hjim  that  is  tiup,  e.ven  in  his  Sen 
'*  Jefus  Chrift.  This  is  the  truk  Gop,  and 
**  ETERNAL  LJFE."— We  fhall  not  fpend  our  time  in 
refuting  the  criticifms  of  feme  of  our  adverfaries,  who 
have  maintained  that  thefe  words,  **  This  is  the  true 
'*  God,  and  eternal  life,"  ought  not  to  be  referred  to 
Jefus  Chrifl:,  who  is  mentioned  immediately  before  ; 
but  to  God,  who  is  fpok.cn  of  in  the  preceding  verfc. 
For  nothing  but  an  extreme  defire  to  defend  their  cuufe» 
SX  any  rate,  could  induce  them  to  aHcit  any  fjc)i 
.thing.  Nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  Fie 
who  is  called  "  The  true  God,  and  eternal  liie,"  is  t!ic 
-fame  who  is  called  Uiis ;  of  whom  it  is  fiid,  *'  We  are 
**  in  him  th.it  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jcfus  Chrifl," 
.Socinus  does  not  deny  it.  Nay,  he  not  only  allows, 
that  Chriil  is  here  called,  *'  The  true  God,  and  eternal 
*'life;"  hut  he  aifo  confefles,  that  thefe  words  .ire 
.parallel  to  thofe  which  are  now  in  difpute  between  u;», 

*  I  am  eafily  induced  to  think,  fays  he,  as  the  fenfe  Ou" 

*  this  palîage  fcems  to  be  entirely  the  fame  with  that  On* 

*  Chrid  himfelf,  John  xvii.  3.  that  this  claufc,  "  This  io 
♦'  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life  ;"  ought  10  be  referred, 

*  not  only  to  the  Father,  but  alfo  to  Chrifl  himfclf,   ^ 

Z   2 


B£CT.   VI.  26S  CHAP.   III. 

*  mych  as  it  can  and  ought  to  be  referred.' — But  here 
ojr  lubtile  oppofer  falls  into  a  contradivSlion.  For  if 
the  two  paflages  be  not  paraliel,  why  does  he  fay,  that 
the  fenfe  of  the  one  is  the  fenfe  of  the  other?  And  if 
they  be,  how  can  he  maintain,  that  one  of  them  fiiys, 
Jefus  Chrift  is  the  true  God,  and  that  the  other  implies 
he  is  nc'^  worthy  of  any  fuch  character  ? 

But  il  is  of  (lili  greater  importance  to  conlider,  that 
pqualify  on  which  the  Farher  and  the  Son  are  here 
placed.  They  are  evidently  reprefented,  as  being 
^:nitedÎ5^  as  being  equally,  tlie  grand  OhjeB  of  fpirltual 
and  faving  knowledge.  It  is,  indeed,  pretended  by 
our  opponents,  that  it  behoved  Jefus  to  fpeak  very 
iuodtilly,  when  he  was  praying  to  his  Father.  Creliiu3 
•^-bferves,  that  it  was  by  no  means  proper  for  Chrilt,  on 
fuch  an  occafion,  to  fay.  That  he  was  the  only  true 
God,  with  his  Father.  The  reafons  which  he  aifigns 
are  ;    '  Partly,  becaufe  he  is  praying    to   his  Father  ; 

*  and,  therefore,  ought  to  fpeak  with  the  greateft 
'  niodedy  :  and,  partly,  becaufe  he  confiders  himfelf  as 

*  the  Father's  meffenger.     For  it  is  not  to  be  fuppofed 

*  that   he   fhould,    wheh    praying    to   his    Father,    fet 

*  hinifïlf  on  an  equality  with  him  ;  by  affuming  a  title 

*  fo  great,  that  the  Father  has  none  fuperior.      And, 

*  feeing    he    here    confiders    himfelf   as    his    Father's 

*  meffenger,   we  muil  not  fuppofe,  that  he  attributes  to 

*  himfelf  the  glory  and  majtlty  of  Him  who  fent  him, 

*  which  confiils  in  his  being  the  only  true  God.' — But 
if  Jefus  be  not  the  only  true  God  with  his  Father,  it  is 
fo  far  from  being  the  greatejl  modefty  in  him  not  to 
call  himfelf  fo,  that  there  is  no  modefty  in  it  at  all. 
Extraordinary  modefly,  in  a  fubjeél,  a  fervant,  to  fay, 

*  I  am  not  the  fovereign  of  the  date!'  Wonderful 
modefty,  truly,  which  reftrains  a  worm,  an  atom, 
from  calling  itfelf  the  Creator  of  all  things; 
God  blessed  for  ever  1  Never  was  modefty  more 
offended,  nor  the  lav/s  of  decorum  violated  in  a  more 
outrageous  manner,  than  by  Jefus  Chrift  on  this  occafion- 


,£ECT.  Vï.  ^69  CKAP.   n-U 

'if  he  be  a  mere  man,  or  a  mere  creature.      I,  therefore, 
iiîiay  return  Crellius  his  own  words,  and  affirm  ;  Tliat 
-neither  moJtJIy,   nor  the  character  of  mejpn^ery  would 
permit  Jefus  Chrid  to  afTociatc  liimfelf  with  the  Father, 
.as  uiiiiediy  conilituting  an  Obje»5>  that  is  the  happinefs 
.-ofmaakind,  if  he  were  a  mere  creature.      Not  modf/^y  : 
.For  if  Jefas  be  a  mere  creature,  he  is  not,  in  comparifon 
with  God,  fo  much  as  a  grain  of  fand,  to  the  firmament  ; 
^s  a  glimmering  taper,  to  the  fun;  as  the  fmallefl  worm, 
•to  the  lord  of  the  whole  earth.     SJiall  we  fay,  then, 
that  the  firmament  and  a  grain  of  fand  fupport  the  worlds 
That  the  fun  and  a  glimmering  taper  illuminate    our 
(terraqueous  globe  1   That  the  lord  of  the  eartli  and  a 
.worm    caufc;    great    revolutions    in     dates  ? — Not   the 
rhzrîiCizT  of  mej'c'n^er:  For  in  wiiat  empire  was  a  dutiful 
fervant  ever  known    to   name  himfelf  with  his  maimer, 
and  to  attribute  every  honour   and  ad  of  royalty  to 
iîimftlf  and  the  fovereign  ?  Were  a  minider  of  date  to 
i/Tue  a  proclamation  informing  the  public,  That  all  affairs 
■relating  to  government  mud  be  tranfaflcd  in  the  king's 
and  his  own   name  ;  were  he  to  caufe  his  name  to  be 
damped,  with  his  royal  mader's,  on  the  coin,  and  to 
be  infcribed  en  public  edifices  ;  and  were  he  to  grant 
pardons  in  his  own  name,  he  would  certainly  be  guihy 
of  high-treafon.     How,   then,  dared    Jefus   to    adert, 
that  life  eternal  confids  in  the  knov;Iedgc  of  God  and 
of  himfelf  ?  How  oared  iie  to  inditute  an  ordinance, 
and  require  It  to  be  adniinidered  in  this  form  of  words; 
I  baptize  tJiee,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
*' the    Son,    and   of  the    Holy  Ghod?"  With    what 
propriety,    truth,    or   decency,    could   he    fay  ;    ♦'  Ye 
•'  believe  in  God,  believe  alfo  in  Me  V  Or  how  dare 
we  fav,  '  I  believe  in  God  the   Fallicr  almighty,  and 
*  in  Jefus  Chrid  :' 

The  principal  terms  of  which  this  text  confids, 
£irnid\  us  .vith  a  firrther  proof,  that  the  Lord  Meiîîab 
is  not  excluded  from  the  Godhead  of  the  Father.  Let 
■*«'.s  confidpr  the  word  htozu.     By  this  term  we  muil 


SILCT.  VI.  270  CHAP.   111. 

eiiher  undtrfland  a  merely  fpeculative,  or  a  pra(Slical 
knowledge.  Not  the /ormer ;  becaufe  our  adverfaries 
themfelves  being  judges,  life  eternal  does  not  confifl 
in  fuch  a  knowledge.   For  Crellius  fays,  *  It  is  falfe  that 

*  eternal  life  confifl?,  «or  yet  the  means  to  obtain  it,  in 

*  knowing  that  the  Father  and  his  Son  Jefus  Chrift  are 

*  the  only  and  true  God.     This  cannot  be,  if  taken 

*  aecording   to    the    letter.      Otherwife    it    would    be 

*  fufficient,    in   order    to   obtain   eternal   happinefs,   to 

*  acknowledge  the  Father  and  the  Son  for  the  only  true 

*  God.     But  if  fo,  all  that  are  of  this  opinion  would 

*  obtain  eternal  life  ;  though,  at  the  fame  time,  they 

*  might  be  guilty  of  fuch  fms  as  exclude  them  from  the 

*  kingdom  of  heaven,  according  to  the  exprefs  declara- 

*  tions   of   Scripture.      You  will    fay,    then,    All    this 

*  fhould  be  taken  in  an  improper  fenfe;  in  fuch  a  manner, 

*  that  this  knowledge  may  comprehend  faith  in  Jefus 

*  Chrift,   a  faith    working  by  love,    and   all    forts    of 

*  graces*.' — It  muft,  therefore,  be  a  pra8ical  know- 
ledge. And  if  fo,  to  know  the  true  God,  muft  include 
a  reliance  on  him  and  love  to  him  ;  adoration  of  him 
and  obedience  to  his  commands.  To  this  our  learned 
opponent  agrees.  Now,  as  the  term  knonv^  is  applied  • 
to  the  Son,  as  well  as  to  the  Father,  in  the  text  before 
us;  it  neceflarily  follows,  that  eternal  life  does  not  only 
confift  in  tracing,  loving,  adoring,  and  obeying  God 
the  Father  ;  but  alfo  in  paying  the  fame  honours,  and 
in  performing  the  fame  duties,  to  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 
But  if  it  be  our  happinefs  to  knov/  Jefus  Chrift,  fo  as 
to  believe  in  him  and  love  him,  fo  as  to  worfhip  and 
obey  him,  he  muft  be  the  true  God  ;  for  it  is  not 
poffible  that  a  rational  creature  fhould  owe  thefe  honours 
and  duties  to  any  other.  None  but  the  true  God  ought 
to  be  ferved  and  worftiipped,  in  a  religious  way.' 
*<  Thou  fhalt  worftiip,"  fays  the  fupreme  Lawgiver, 
commented  upon  by  the  Teacher  come  from  God;  — 

•   CncLL.  DeUtio  Dee  Patre,  SeA.  I.  p.  ZI. 


SECT.   VI.  271  CHAP.   in. 

•*  Thou  (hah  worfhip  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him 
•*  ONLY  fhalt  thou  ierve."  None  but  the  Divine  Being, 
therefore,  can  deferve  thofe  honours,  which  are  piefented 
to  the  proper  object  of  '  faith,  and  love,  and  ail  forts 
*  of  graces.' 

Life  eternaU  is  another  expreffion  which  defer ves  our 
notice.  None  but  an  Infinite  Being  can  render  the  life 
of  a  creature  eternal.  But  Jefus  is  not  an  Infinite  Being, 
if  he  be  not  the  true  God  with  his  Father  :  confequently, 
on  that  fuppofttion,  he  cannot  give  eternal  life. — When 
the  pafllige  aflerts,  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  eternal 
life,  and  that  the  knowledge  of  Chrift  is  eternal  life  ; 
either  it  means,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  latter  is 
eternal  life,  in  the  fame  fenfe  in  which  it  is  aftirmed  of 
the  former,  or  in  a  different  fenfe.  If  in  a  different 
fenfe,  no  exprelllons  can  be  more  ambiguous  :  they  are 
equivocal,  and  adapted  to  lead  us  into  a  fatal  error..  If 
in  the  fame  fenfe,  Chrift  muft  beflow  eternal  life  on  the 
fubjeâs  of  that  fpiritual  knowledge»  for  the  fame  reafon 
that  the  Father  does  to  them  that  know  him.  But  the 
Father  gives  life  eternal,  becaufe  he  is  the  true  God.  So 
fays  the  text  ;  ♦'  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
*'  know  thee  the  only  true  God."  It  follov/s,  then, 
that  our  Immanuel  bellows  life  eternal,  only  as  he  is 
the  true  God. — Again  :  Either  the  knowledge  of  Chrift 
is  life  eternal,  becaufe  that  boundlefs  bleffednefs  conjifls 
in  this  knowledge  ;  or  becaufe  this  knowledge  is  the 
principlt:  of  it.  If  the /or;n?r,  Jefus  Chrift  mud  be  the 
Supreme  Good  ;  for  confummate  felicity,  or  life  eternal, 
is  no  other  than  the  complete  pofielTion  of  the  Supreme 
Good.  If  the  lailer^  then  I  demand,  Whether  this 
knowledge  be  the  fource  of  eternal  life  ;  or  only  a  mean 
to  obtain  it  ?  If  the  fource  of  it,  the  objetfl  of  that  mofl 
beneficial  knowledge  mud  be  the  true  God  :  for  it  is 
only  the  knowledge  of  Him  that  humbles,  comforts,  and 
fan^^iifies  us  ;  that  produces  both  holinefs  and  happinefs, 
which  are  the  two  grand  condituents  of  that  life  which 
is  eternal.   If  only  as  a  mean  to  obtain  everlading  felicity» 


SECT.  Vï.  272  eilAP.  Ill- 

the  language  of  the  text,  though  feemingly  ilrong  anrf 
big  with  fenfe,  was  intended  to  exprefs  very  low  and 
feeble  ideas  :  for  if  fo,  there  is  very  little  excellence 
in  the  knowledge  of  Chrift,  which  is  not  found  in  an 
acquaintance  with  other  perfons  and  other  things.  Were 
this  all,  it  might  have  been  fawd,  with  propriety  ;  *  This 

*  is  life  eternal,  to  know  the  law — to  know  the  Scrip- 
^  tures.     This  is  life  eternal,  for  the  Ifraelites  to  know 

*  Mofes  i'  and,  at  the  commencement  of  the  gofpcl- 
difpenfation,  '  for  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  know  the 

*  apoflles/  For  the  knowledge  of  the  apoftles,  as  the 
meffengers  of  God  and  ambafladors  of  Chrilf,  was  a 
mean  of  obtaining  eternal  happinefs  :  and  the -knowledge 
of  Mofes,  as  the  honoured  fervant  of  Jehovah,  was  a 
happy  mean,  by  which  the  Ifraelites  were  brought  to 
obey  God  and  obtain  everlafling  felicity.  Or,  if  you 
•,viil,  the  knowledge  of  Mofes,  and  of  the  apoflles,  being 
a  mean  of  converting  finners  to  God,  v/as  alfo  a  mean 
of  bringing  them  to  eternal  life.  Whether  this  mean 
was  greater,  or  lefs,  is  not  material  to  my  prefent  purpofe; 
a  mean  it  undoubtedly  -was,  and  the  argument  requires 
no  more. — It  mult,  notwithflanding,  be  granted,  that 
it  would  have  been  impious  and  blafphemous  to  have 
fpoken  after  this  manner  ;  *  This  is  life  eternal  to  know 

*  îvlofes — This  is  life  eternal  to  know  the  apoflles.'  And 
It  would  be  the  height  of  impiety,  to  call  Mofes  and 
the  apoftles  Eternal  JLife,  as  the  Scripture  calls 
Jefus  Chrift  :   "  This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life." 

Whoever  confiders  this  apofloUc  teftimony  will  find, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  very  clofely  co.nne<5^s  the  ideas  of 
'*  the  true  God,"  and  *'  eternal  life  ;"  and  that  it  was 
iiis  defign  to  inform  us,  that  it  is  becaufc  Jefus  Chrift  is 
the  former,  that  he  gives  the  latter.  We  may,  there- 
fore, fafely  conclude,  that  as  he  bejlo-ws  the  one,  he 
lEufl  be  the  other.  For  when  he  is  called  "  eternal 
*'  life  ;"  and  when  it  is  faid,  that  eternal  life  confifts  in 
^'  knov/ing  him  ;"  the  expreflions  do  not  merely  lignify, 
iliat  iie  /rowj^j  everlaliing  felicity,  or  that  he  beflcuu 


SECT.   Vï.  273  CHAP.   III. 

it  on  hh  difciples  ;  but  that  he  is  the  author  of  it,  and 
that  it  confias  in  the  enjoyment  of  him.  M.o{çs  promifcd 
the  land  of  Canaan  to  the  Ifraelites,  and  Joftiua  put  them 
in  pojfejfion  of  it  ;  yet  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is 
called  '  the  land  of  Canaan  ;'  becaufe  fuch  a  name,  for 
hich  a  reafon,  would  be  ridiculous.  But  Chriit  is  called 
*'  eternal  lite,'*  and  that  immenfe  blifs  is  faid  to  conlift 
in  *'  the  knowledge  of  him  ;"  10  teach  us,  not  only  that 
ht  prom'ifes  that  ir.iinite  bkHtdnefs,  nor  only  that  he  will 
certainly  beftonv  it  ;  but  that  he  is  the  f.urce  of  it,  and 
that  we  need  only  to  know  him,  in  oider  to  be  both 
holy  and  happy  for  ever.  Jefus,  therefore,  mull  be  at 
InHr.ite  Objed  ;  mud  be  the  true  God.  For  if  he  were 
■k  mere  creature  it  would  be  impious  to  fuppofe,  that 
everlafting  Hfe  is  infallibly  connecfled  with  the  knowledge 
of  him  ;  that  being  the  prerogative  royal  of  the  Great 
Supreme.  As  it  is  written,  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that 
*'  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God — This  is 
**  the  true  God  and  eternal  life." 

Let  us  now  confider  the  name,  God.  Our  opponents 
labour  to  perfuade  us  that  the  term  God  is  not  a  proper 
name,  but  an  appellative.  For  this  purpofe  they  have 
written  whole  treatifes  :  nor  need  we  wonder  at  it. 
For  if  it  be  certain,  that  the  emphatical  term  is  the 
proper  name  of  the  Supreme  Being,  they  mud  be 
obliged  to  acknowledge  Jefus  as  a  truly  Divine  Perfon  ; 
becaufe  they  allow,  that  he  is  frequently  called  God, 
even  in  fuch  pafT.iges  as  are  not  fuppofcd  to  be  figurative. 
They,  therefore,  will  have  it,  that  the  f-iblime  name  is  an 
appellative  ;  and  that  it  is  frequently  given  to  others, 
belides  the  Great  Supreme. — Without  entering  into  this 
difpute,  we  (hall  reafon  with  them  on  theirown  principles. 
If,  then,  the  term  God  be  an  appellative,  we  may  form 
the  fame  judgment  of  it,  as  of  the  name  king  ;  which  is 
giren  to  Jehovah,  by  way  of  excellence,  but  is  alfo 
attributed  to  others.  Now  I  demand  of  our  adverfaries, 
fuppofing  the  words  of  the  text  were,  *  This  is  life 
*  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  King^ 


SECT.  VI.  274  CHAT.   HI. 

*  and  Jefus  Cbi  Ifl  whom  thou  haft  fent  ;'  whether  they 
would  affirm  that  the  exprefTions,  '  only  true  King/ 
belong  to  the  Father  exclulively  of  the  Son  ?  or  whether 
they  would  allow  them  to  belong  to  both  :  They  would, 
I  am  perfuaded,  underftand  the  words  thus  ;  This  is 
life  eternal,  to  know  thee  the  only  true  King  ;  thee. 
Father,  with  him  whom  thou  haft  fent,  even  Jefus 
Chrift.  Now,  as  the  name  GocU  on  their  principles, 
is  no  lefs  appellative  then  the  term  king  ;  they  ought, 
if  they  would  ad  confjlkntly,  to  underftand  the  words 
of  our  Lord  thus:  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
know  thee  to  be  the  true  God  ;  thee.  Father,  with 
him  whom  thou  haft  fent,  even  jefus  Chrift. 

7^he  adjective  /;-«<?,  will  furnilh  us  with  another 
argument.  By  the  ''  true  God,"  our  opponents  undcr- 
ihind,  the  great  God  ;  God,  by  w  ay  of  excellence  ; 
the  Supreme  Being.  We  allow,  that  the  true  God 
is  the  great  God  ;  and  that  the  great  God  is  the 
true  God.  But  we  maintain,  that  the  idea  of  trve 
God,  and  that  of  Supreme  Being,  are  two  ideas  which 
reprefent  the  fame  Objed  in  different  lights.  They^rw^r, 
oppofes  the  infinite  Objeâ:  to  all  fuch  ^s  falfely  bear  the 
name,  God.  The  I^ter,  contrafb  the  fame  eternal 
and  fovereign  Objefl  with  every  other  being  in  the 
iiniverfe;  for  all  creatures.are  ncceftarily  and  infinitely 
inferior  to  him.  So  that  though  the  very  fame  adorable 
-Objed  is  figniiied  by  thcfe  tv/o  Divine  charadets  ;  yet, 
2s  they  ccwivey  didindl  ideas,  they  ought  net  to  be 
confounded.  This,  however,  our  opponents  conftantly 
do,  when  tliey  difpute  againlc  us  from  the  text  under 
confideration.  It  would  not  avail  to  fay,  The  term 
true  conveys  the  idea  of  excellence  :  as,  when  it  is 
faid,  *  Conftantine  was  a  Irue  emperor — Alexander  was 
a  tru:  hero.'  Meaning,  the  one  had  all  the  .qualities 
which  an  emperor  ought  to  have  ;  and  the  other  was  a 
great  hero.  For  though  the  adjedlive  irve^  is  fometimes 
•ufed  to  indicate  the  excellence  of  the  fubjed  intended  ; 
y.et  it  more  frequently  Signifies  the  reality  cf  it.     A? 


SECT.  VI.  275  CHAS».  Iir. 

when  it  is  faid,  '  Henry  the  fourth  was  the  true  king  of 

*  France,    whtn    he    fought    againit  the   league,  after 

*  Henry  the  third's  death/  That  is,  he  was  then  renlly 
king;  he  did  net  vfurp  the  crown. — So,  in  the  tex.t 
before  us,  the  exprelfions,  '*  only  true  God,''  c-rrying 
in  them  a  manifeil  alkifion  to  the  muhitude  of  Pa^iin 
divinities,  who  fdlfely  bore  the  name  of  gods;  the  ej.>ithct 
tru5,  Tv.w[\  (ignify  tlie  reality^  rather  than  the  excelUnce 
of  Him  to  whom  it  is  appHed. 

Bat  if  fo  it  is  very  eafy  to  prove  that  the  phrafe, 
"  only  true  God,"  Ihould  be  referred  to  the  Son,  as 
as  v/eil  as  to  the  Father.  For  if  the  charader,  *'  true 
**  God/'  ought  to  be  confined  to  the  Father;  it  mu(^ 
be,  either  becaufe  it  is  not  repeated  in  the  fécond  member 
of  the  propofition  ;  or  becaufe  it  is  too  excellent  to  belong 
to  the  Son.  Not  the  former;  for  we  have  already 
proved,  that  the  analogy  of  language,  as  well  as  the  verb 
knoiuj  requires  that  it  fliould  be  underftood.  Nor  is 
it  the  latter;  becaufe  it  is  intended  to  lignify,  a  God 
that  is  not  Jidu'ious ;  one  that  really  e^Àjl s .  And  who 
can  doubt,  if  Jefiis  Chrilt  le  God,  as  our  opponents 
themfelvcs  acknov/îedge,  that  he  is,  in  this  fenfe,  the 
true  God  ? — Further  :  As  that  God,  who  is  oppofcd  to 
idols,  does  not  exiit  merely  in  the  imagination  of  men, 
but  really  and  truly  ;  I  demand,  v/hether  the  epithet  true, 
belong  to  Jefas  Chrid,  or  not  ?  If  not,  he  is,  by  the 
confeifion  of  our  oppofers,  a  falfe  and  imaginary  god. 
If  it  does,  he  mufl  be  the  only  true  God. 

But,  perhaps,  the  word  only^  connected  with  *•  true 
*'  God,"  may  give  the  title  an  excellence,  fo  as  to 
render  it  peculiar  to  the  Father.  By  no  means.  For 
as  the  term  only,  determines  that  of  true;  fo  the  term 
true,  limits  that  oî  only.  As  the  adjefiive  /n/<?,  is  oppofed 
to  falfe;  fo  the  adveib  on^y,  is  oppofed  to  many.  "  Only 
"  true  God,"  therefore,  Itands  oppcfed  to  the  multitude 
of  filfe  gods  v^orihipped  by  the  Heathens. — -Further  : 
*'  Only  true  God,"  is  not  the  epithet  of  the  Father 
alonej  bat  of  th-  Father  and  the  Son  unitedlv.     Aï  in 


SHCT.  VI.  276  CiiAP.   HI. 

tills  paflage  ;  *'  Or  I  only,  and  Barnabas,  have  not  we 
*'  power  to  forbear  working  ?"    Here,  it  is  evident  that 
the  term  •«/)',  which,  in  conftrudion,  is  the  epichet  ot" 
Paul  ;  is,  in  the  fenfe  of  the  words,  the  epithet  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  conjointly. — Again  :   If  the  term  only  had 
been  the  epiihet,  not  of  God,  as  including  both  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  of  the  Father;  if  the  text  had 
been  thus  read.  That  they  might  know  the  Father  only 
to  be  the  true  God  ;  yet  it  would  have  required  fonis 
caution,  not  to  overftrain  the  fenfe  of  the  word  only; 
v.'hich  does  not  alvv'ays  exprefs  the  idea  of  exclufion, 
fo  much  as  it  may  feem  to  do.     This  appears  by  an 
unqueilionable  inlcance.      For  of  whom  does  the  Scrip- 
ture fpeakj  when   it  fays;  "The   blelTed   and    only 
*'  Potentate  ;  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords  ; 
*<  who  ONLY  hath  immortality  :"   V/ehyy  it  is  of  Jefus 
Chrid  :  but,  for  argument  fake,  we  will  fuppofe  ourfelves 
under  a  miftake,  in  that  refpecl.  Whether  our  opponents 
attribute  the  epithet  to  the  Father,  or  to  the  Son,  is  to 
us  indifferent,  as  to  our  prefent  purpofe  :  for  they  will  Rill 
end,  that  the  term  only,  which  is  here  repeatedly  ufed, 
does  not  limit  fo  much  as  it  feems  to  do.    Can  it  be  faid 
of  the  Father,  to  the  exclufion  of  the  Son,  '<  That  he 
"is  the   ONLY    Potentate;"    that    "He    only   hath 
"  immortality  ?"   No,  doubtlefs  ;  for  both  thefe  qualities 
belong  alfo  to  the  Son.     Can  it  be  faid  of  the  Son,  to 
the  exclufion  of  the  Father,  "  He  is  the  ONLy  Poten- 
'-' tate  ;   He  only  hath  immortality?"  Certainly  not  ; 
for  both  eternity  and  dominion   belong  to  the  Father. 
If,  then,  the  word  only,  when  applied  to  the  Father, 
exclude  other  objefls,  but  rot  the  Son  ;  and  if,   when 
applied  to  the  Son,  it  exclude  not  the  Father  ;  it  follows, 
that  the  fame  term,  in  the  paflage  before  us,  if  it  had 
been  applied  direâly  to  the  Father,  would  not  have 
warranted  us  to  fay,  thai  the  Son  is  excluded  '■  efpecially, 
as  the  Son  is  called  God,  and  the  true  God,  as  well 
as  the  Father.  —  Hence  it  appears  that  this  pafiage, 
which  our  adverfaries  produce  againil  us  with  fo  much 
confidence,  confirms  our  fcntiment. 


SECT.   VI.  1']']  CHAP.    IV. 

CHJPTER     IV. 

An  Objcclion  from  I  Cor.  viii.  4?  5,  6   anfwerc'J. 

jlSl.  similar  objecftion  is  raifed,  by  ouV 
opponents,  on  the  following  text  :  "  We  know  that  an 
*'  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and  that  there  is  none 
*'  other  God  but  one.  For  though  there  be  that  are 
"  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth  ;  as  there 
**  be  gods  many,  and  lords  many  :  but  to  us  there  is 
**  but  one  God,  the  Father  ;  of  whom  are  all  things, 
*'  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one  Lord  Jcfus  Chrifl,  by  whom 
*'  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him." — On  which  pafTage 
Crellius  forms  this    argument:  *  What  could  be  faid 

*  more  clearly  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  God  but  the 

*  l-'aiher  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrid  ?     Paul,   explaining 

*  who  this  one  God  is,  fays,   he  is  the  Father  ;   not  the 

*  Father,   Son,  and    Holy  Spirit.      But   there  was    no 

*  reafon  that  he,  when  his  defign  was  to  ihew,  who  this 

*  one  God  is,   (hould  mention  only  the  Father  ;   if  it  be 
'  true,  that  this  one  God   is  not  only  the  Father,  but 

*  alfo  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Gholt  :   becaufe  thtfe  tv;o 

*  lafl  Perfons  were  as  proper  to  fhew  who  the  one  God 

*  is,  as  the  perfon   of  the  Father  ;   and,  confequently, 

*  fhould  not  have  been  pafled  over  in  filence.' 

Here  I  fliall  make  a  few  reiledions,  which  may  ferve 
as  fo  many  general  anfwers  to  this  objedion.  And  it 
may  be  obferved,  both  in  this  pafTage  and  feveral  others 
of  a  fimllar  kind,  that  the  names  Father,  and  Gcj/,  are 
not  uft.d  to  fignify  one  fmgle  Perfon  in  the  Deitv  ;  but 
that  Infinite  Eflence  which  is  common  to  all  the  Divine 
Perfons.  This  is  what  theological  writers  mean,  when 
they  fpeak  of  the  term  Gody  being  taken  c\jii'J\(^q^  or 
eflentially.  Goo,  then,  that  eternal,  invifible,  omnipo- 
tLcnt,  and  infinite  Being,  who  is  neither  the  Father  alone, 
A  a 


SECT.  VI.  278  CHAP.   IV. 

ror  the  Son  alone,  nor  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  ;  but,  who 
comprehends  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
tjpirit  ;  is  Cdlled  Father  in  a  large  and  gtnetal  fenfe, 
btcaufc  he  is  the  firll  Caufe,  "  of  whom  are  all  things, 
*'  and  we  in  him."  In  this  place  he  is  called  Father^ 
in  the  fame  fenfe  as  when  it  is  faid,  "  Every  good  gift, 
"arid' every  perfc6t  gift,  is  from  above,  and  ccmeth 
'*  down  from  the  Father  of  lights  :'*  and  again,  *'  One 
♦'  God  and  Father  of  all."  Tn  which  paflages  the 
characler,  Father,  is  general;  and  fignifies,  that  God 
is  the  firfi  Caufe  of  all  things.  A  characSter  this,  like 
thofe  of  Cieator,  Redeemer,  Saviour;  all  which  belong 
to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Gholf,  becaufe  they  are 
i'.pplied  to  the  tiTence  which  is  common  to  the  three 
jHerfons. — Creilius,  therefore,  is  under  a  miflake  when 
3ie  fuggelts,  that  Chrlil  and  the  Holy  G  hod  aie  never, 
in  the  Scripture,  called  Father.  For  Jefus  Chriil  is 
exprefsly  called,  "  the  evcilafting  Father."  iVnd  as 
h,e  made  the  worid,  and  is  the  great  firll  Caufe,  he  may 
with  propriety  be  called  the  Father  of  all  things  ;  for 
"  all  things  were  made  by  hini,  and  witliout  him  was 
•*  not  any  thir,g  made  that  was  made." — Should  it  be 
fald,  *  Tliough  he  is  called  "  the  everlailing  Father," 
*  yet  not  fimp'y  the  Father:^  I  anfwer,  Neither  is  God 
called  fimply,  the  Father^  in  the  paflage  before  us  ;  but 
*'  the  Father,  of  nvhnm  are  ail  things." 

The  chara^fcer,  Father^  may  be  taken  two  v/sys  ; 
either,  as  (landing  alone,  or  as  connected  with  adjedives, 
which  limit  the  fignifiCation  of  it.  When  alom^  it 
fignifies  that  Perfon  in  the  Godhead,  who  is  diftin- 
v^uiHied  from  the  Son;  but  in  this  text  it  is  limitted. 
We  mafl  not  fay,  *'  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
*••  Father,"  and  Oop  there  ;  but  we  mud  add,  "  of 
*•  whom  are  all  things.''  Had  the  apoflle  faid,  There 
is  but  one  God,  thefirjl  Caufe,  of  whom  are  all  things  ; 
our  opponents  could  have  fou'.îd  nothing  in  the  words, 
which  they  would  have  imagined  to  be  in  their  favour. 
And  though  we  could  not  find  a  fimilar  epithet  given 


SECT.   VI.  1279  CHAP.   IV. 

to  Jefiis  Chrifl:,  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  this  would  not 
prevent  our  concluding,  th^t  He  to  whom  Infallibility 
^ives  the  names,  and  alcribes  the  works  of  God,  is  the 
firlt  Caafc,  of  whom  are  all  things.  Now  it  is  plain, 
that  "  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things  ;*'  and,  the 
Jirji  Ciiufe,  of  whom  are  all  thinj;*.,  arc  equivalent 
propofitions.  Confcquently,  our  advcifaries  liavt  no 
more  advantage  from  the  former,  than  ihey  could  have 
by  the  latter. 

But  though  the  Father,  Son,  p.nd  Holy  Spirit,  jiave 
all  the  fame  efience  ;  vet  they  are  revealed,  in  the  woi  k. 
«f  Redemption,  under  very  different  views.  IMie  Father 
appjints,  the  Son  executes,  and  the  Holy  Gho't 
applies.  The  Fithcr,  in  a  more  particular  manner, 
fudains  the  character  of  the  offended  Deity,  and  aflcr'-s 
the  honours  of  Divine  government  ;  for  whicii  reafon 
he  is  more  frequently  called  God,  than  the  other  adorable 
Pcrfons.  The  Son  appears  as  mediator;  holding  \\\t 
place  of  man,  yet  inverted  with  the  rights  of  the 
Godhead.  And  the  Holy  Gholt  holds  the  place  of  the 
Father,  and  of  Jefus  Chrilt,  fupplying  the  abfence  o^ 
the  latter.  We  need  not  wonder,  therefore,  that  x\yt 
name,  God,  which  is  com.mon  to  all  the  Perfons  of  the 
oiofl  holy  and  glorious  Trinity,  (hould  be  more  frequent' v 
given  to  the  Father,  who  fultains  the  Divine  chara^fkr 
in  a  very  particular  manner,  in  the  wonderful  œconomv 
of  Redemption. 

Again  :  The  adjective  oncy  which  here  limits  ihc 
name,  God,  (hould  not  be  underwood  in  that  rigour  of 
lignification  which  our  advetfaries  urge.  For  though 
it  utterly  excludes  the  "gods  many  and  lords  many," 
that  are  here  mentioned,  from  having  anv  claim  to  tiie 
charaéter  of  Deity;  yet,  without  entirely  depaiti,i_^ 
,  from  the  analogy  of  faith,  it  cannot  be  underllood  as 
militating  againit  the  Divinity  of  Jefus  Chi  ill.  Becaufe 
he  not  only  bears  the  names  and  titles  of  the  true  God; 
but  is  alfo  reprefented,  by  the  unerring  Spirit,  as 
poiTeffing  the  attributes  and  performing  the  works,  as 


^rcT.  VI. 


280 


CHAP.   IV. 


irquiring  the  honours  and  receiving  the  adoration, 
v.'hich  are  peculiar  to  the  Infinite  Supreme.  Such  is 
»he  union  between  the  Father  and  tiie  Son,  that,  m 
rcfped  of  their  efTential  glories,  what  is  afleited  of  the 
One,  is  to  be  underfiood  of  the  Other.  Jefus  docs  not 
only  fay,  "  T  and  the  Father  are  one  ;"  but  aifo  affirms, 
'hat,  "  he  who  honours  the  Son,  honours  the  Father 
*'  alfo.  And  again  he  fays,  "  All  that  the  Father 
"  hath,  is  mine — He  that  hath  feen  Me,  hath  feen  the 
•'  Father  alfo." 

Hence  it  follows,  that  when  the  Scripture  afcribca 
any  peifetflion  to  the  Father  alone,  it  does  not  mean  to 
exclude  the  Son.  This  our  opponents  are  obliged  to 
acknowledge  ;  and,  in  fo  doing,  confcfs  the  weaknefs 
of  their  own  objection.  For  when  God  is  reprefented 
AS  the  0T2ly  Saviour,  will  they  except  our  great  Mediator? 
Or,  when  Chrill  is  exhibited,  in  the  gofpel,  as  the  o/i^y 
Saviour,  there  being  no  falvation  in  any  other;  will  they 
exclude  the  Father  ?  The  Scripture  afftrts,  that  "  God 
*'  only  is  wife  ;"  that  He  only  is  good  ;  but  mutt  we 
confider  the  term  on/yy  as  exckiding  Jefus  Chri(l  from 
an  intered  in  thofe  perfections  .•*  And  when  it  is  faid, 
"  The  things  of  God  knoweih  ovSe/c,  no  one,  but  the 
"  Spiiit  of  God  ;"  mufl:  we  from  hence  conclude, 
that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  ignoiant  of  the  things 
of  God  ? 

From  thefe  general  reflections  T  come  to  my  author. 

*  Paul,  explaining  who  this  one  God  is,   '  fays,  he  is 

*  t/?£  Father;  not  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.' 
— This  is  a  great  miflake.  For  Paul  neither  explains 
who  this  one  God  is,  nor  does  he  fay  that  he  is  the 
Father,  to  the  exclufion  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 
Ke  does  not  explain  who  this  one  God  is  ;  or,  if  it  be 
called  an  explanation,  it  is  an  imperfeit  one,  and  only 
adapted  to  the  matter  in  hand.  It  was  not  his  bufinefs, 
in  this  place,  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  Father  of  our 
Loid,  and  to  (hew  what  the  Father  had  more  excellent 
than  th^  Son.     His  bufmsfs  was,  to  characterize  that 


'?.ECT.  VI.  281  CHAP.   IV. 

God  who  is  oppofed  10  idols  ;  and  to  afTert  his  infinite 
fuperiority  over  the  deides  of  tlie  Heathen,  the  angels 
of  heaven,  and  the  kings  of  the  earth,  who  are  fome- 
times  called  gods.  This  being  the  apoflle's  defign,  he 
defcribes  God  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  exalts  him  far 
above  all  other  beings  ;  and,  well  remembering  what  the 
prophet  had  faid  of  all  fiflitious  divinities,  "  The  gods 
*'  that  have  not  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  even 
**  they  fhall  perifii  from  the  earth,  and  from  under  thefe 
*'  heavens ,"  he  gives  this  oppofite  defcription  of  the 
true  God  :  '*  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father, 
"  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him." 

Our  author  proceeds.     *  The  a]io(He's  deflgn  was,  to 

*  explain  who  thir  one  God  is.      But  docs  lie  explain  a 

*  thing  well,  who  on. its  mere  puvticulars  that  arc  proper 

*  to  illuftrate  it,  than  he  exprclTes  ?  an»!  v.'ho,"  inftead 

*  of  mentioning  three  Perfons,  fpeaks  only  of  c«f ,  ss  the 

*  apoftle  would  do  in  this  place,  if  the  opinion   of  our 

*  adverfaries  were  true  ?  Who,  among  them,  dcfigning 

*  to  explain  and  to  Ihew  v/ho  this  one  God  is,  would 

*  mention  only  the  Father,  and  fay;   There  is  but  one 

*  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  ?  and  would 

*  not  rather  fay,  There  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  Son, 
'and  Holy  Ghoft.*— I  reply;  The  defgn  of  the 
infpired  writer  was,  not  fully  to  explain  who  the  one 
God  is,  but  to  make  him  known  fo  far  as  his  fubjci^t 
required  ;  by  giving  him  a  chara(rter  which  exalts  him 
infinitely  above  all  created  intelligences  and  fiditious 
gods  ;  calling  him  *'  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all 
*'  things."  N jr  is  it  neceflary,  every  time  we  fj^eak  of 
a  thing,  that  we  iliould  endeavour  to  cKplam  it  ;  much 
kfs,  every  time  we  defcribe  a  thing  by  fome  epithet, 
that  we  fhould  explain  it  fully — The  fame  apoftle 
declares,  *'  I  determined  not  to  know  anv  thing  among 
^'  you,  fave  Jefus  Chrifl  and  him  crucified."  J3ut  Hiali 
we  fay.  The  difcourfe  is  abfurd  ;  becaufe  the  apo(lle, 
undertaking  to  defcribe  the  way  of  falvation,  omits  more 
things  than  he  cxprefTes  ?  for  he  dees  rot  rr^ention  God 

A  aj 


SECT.  VI.  282  CH-VP.   IV. 

the  Father,  nor  the  Holy  Ghofl,  nor  eternal  life,  nor 
many  other  obje(5ts  which  are  propofed  to  our  faith,  in 
the  holy  Scriptures. — When  the  Philippian  Jailer  in- 
quired what  he  flioukl  do  to  be  faved  ;  and  was  aifw.ered, 
by  Paul  and  Silas,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi, 
**  and  thou  flialt  be  faved  ;"  will  our  learned  opponent 
fay,  that  thofe  ambaffadors  of  Chrifl:  fpake  impertinently 
on  that  occafion  ?  The  Jailer  defired  tp  know,  how  he 
Miight  obtain  falvatlon.  A  moft:  important  cjtiery, 
concerning  the  greateft  of  all  bleffings.  Their  buiinefs 
•ras  to  anfwer  the  query  ;  and  it  was  equally  niceflary 
for  tliem  to  be  full  and  explicit,  on  fuch  an  occafion, 
as  upon  that  before  us.  Yet  thefe  unerring  guides  did 
rot  dire6t  the  trembling  querift,  to  believe  in  the 
Father,  nor  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  though  it  was  nectfTary 
he  fliould  do  fo  ;  for  he  was  to  be  baptized  in  the  nante 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
Nor  did  they,  fo  far  as  the  hiftory  informs  us,  tell , 
him  to  repent  ;  though  repentance  was  no  lefs  necefTary 
ihan  faith. — The  Ethiopian  eunuch  profefies  his  faith 
in  thefe  words  ;  "  I  believe  that  Jefus  Chrifl  is  the  Son 
**  of  God."  But  was  this  the  <whole  of  his  faith  ?  If  not, 
can  we  fay  *  that  he  explained  himfelf  well,  when  he 
*  concealed  more  than  he  expreffed  ?' — It  is  neither 
7:ecefrary,  nor  poffible,  to  fay  every  thing  belonging  to 
a  fubjeiSi:,  on  all  occafions  :  and  a  man  mufl  be  ignorant, 
both  of  Divine  and  human  language,  to  imagine,  that 
-an  explanation  given  of  any  thing  by  an  adjeâive,  fliould 
be  an  exaft  definition  of  it,  according  to  the  rules  of 
logic,  and  take  in  the  whole  extent  of  its  object. 
Philofophers,  indeed,  fpeakthus  ;  but  people  in  common 
fpeak  in  a  different  manner.  True  it  is,  fince  we  began 
to  difpute  on  thefe  important  fubjeds,  we  choofe  to 
exprefs  ourfelves  with  fuch  a  caution  as  v/ould  be 
needlefs,  if  thefe  queflions  had  never  been  agitated-: 
£nd,  therefore,  when  fpeaking  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
we  frequently  fay.  One  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Jioly  Spirit.     But  how  often  do  we  exprefs  çurfelyes 


SECT.  VI.  283  CHAP.   1\\ 

otherwife  ?  On  how  many  occafions  do  w€  give  thanks 
to  God,  as  the  author  of  our  being  ajid  falvation,  thiough 
Jefus  Chrift  the  mediator  ?  which  is  a  way  of  fpcaking 
fimilar  to  that  of  the  apollle,  in  the  text  before  us. 
*  Who  among  them  would  fail  to  fay,  It  is  the  Father, 

*  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  ?  They  mufl,  indeed,  fo  exprefs 

*  themfelves,  if  they  would  fpeak  agreeably  to  their  own 

*  principles.      Much    more   ought   the    apoille  to    have 

*  fpoken  after  that   manner,  if   he   had    been    of   their 

*  fentiment  ;  becaufe  it  was  his  duty  to  give  do  occaGor> 

*  to  the  great  and  pernicious  error,    as  they  think  it,  of 

*  believing  that  God  is  one,  as  well  in   Perfon^   as  in 

*  efTence  ;  and  that  none  but  the  Father  of  our  Lord 

*  Jefas  Chrift  is  God.'— It  is  not  necefl*ary,  to  fpeak 
agreeably  to  our  principles,  that  we  fliould  always  fully 
exprefs  them.  Though  we  are  verily  perfuaded  of  the 
myflery  of  the  Trinity,  yet  we  may  conGilentJy  fpeak 
of  the  Father,  without  mentioning  the  Son  ;  and  of  the 
Son,  without  mentioning  the  Father  ;  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  vv'ithout  mentioning  either  the  Father»  or  the 
Son.  For  there  is  no  necclfity  that  every  thing  we  fay 
concerning  God,  fliould  be  attended  with  an  explicit 
declaration  of  this  grand  myftery. 

Nor  was  it  neceflary  that  the  apoflle  Hiould  be  fo  very 
apprehenfive  of  giving  occadon  to  an  heretical  opinion, 
by  exprefling  himfelf  as  he  does,  in  this  pafiage.  Such 
an  infinuation,  however,  comes  with  a  very  ill  grace 
from  the  lips  and  pens  of  our  opponents,  and  betrays 
their  inadvertence  to  a  great  degree  ;  for  it  may  be 
retorted  upon,  them  with  the  utmoU  propriety  and  unan- 
fwerable  force.  Was  it  proper  for  the  apoltles,  was  it 
their  duty,  to  avoid  giving  occafion  to  pernicious  errors  ? 
Ought  they  not,  then,  to  have  forborn  the  ufe  of  fuch 
hnguage  as  tended,  (Irongly  tended,  to  lead  mankind 
into  error  and  impiety,  into  blafphetny  and  idolatry! 
Could  they,  without  renouncing  all  concern  for  the 
falvation  of  man  ard  the  glory  of  (}od,  apply  to  Jefus  the 
peculiar,    ellcntial,   and  incommunicable  chara(^ers  of 


SECT.   VI»  2$4  CHAP.   IV. 

Jehovah  ?  Could  they,  without  affronting  their  Maker 
and  laying  a  fnare  for  immortal  fouls,  apply  to  Chrilt..  a 
mere  creature,  thofe  oracles  which  manifeitly  fpeak  only 
of  the  true  God?  Or  could  they,  with  a  due  regard  to 
the  honour  of  the  Eternal  Sovereign  and  the  happinefs 
of  their  fellow-creatures,  aflert,  that  Chrift  is  God  ;  that 
*'  he  is  before  all  things,  and  that  he  created  all  things  ;" 
that  he  «  is  the  Firft  and  the  Laft  ;  equal  with  God, 
"  and  one  with  the  Father  ;"  that  before  him  every 
<*  knee  (hall  bow,'*  and  that  "  all  the  angels  are  com- 
**  manded  to  worfliip  him  ?'*  Nay,  in  thofe  very  pafTagcs 
tt'hich  are  produced  againft  us,  the  apoffles  affociate 
Chrift  with  the  Father,  as  a  performer  of  the  fame 
works  and  a  partaker  of  the  fame  glories.  They  affert, 
that  life  eternal  confifts  in  the  knowledge  of  Chrifî, 
no  lefs  than  in  that  of  the  Father  ;  and,  in  this 
text,  where  Jefus  is  oppofed  to  all  falfe  gods,  it  is 
faid,   "  To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of 

*'  WHOM    ARE    ALL    THINGS,   AND  WE    IN   HIM  ;    and  OnC 

*'  Lord,  Jefus  Chrifl,  by  whom  are  all  things, 
*'  AND  w^E  BY  HIM  ;"  as  if  the  SoH  wcre  on  a  Icvcl  with 
his  Father.  Could  any  thing  be  more  anogant  and 
impious  than  this  familiarity,  with  which  Jefus  Chrifl 
treats  the  Infinite  God,  if  it  be  true  that  he  is  a  mere 
creature  ?  for  it  nuft  cot  be  forgotten,  that  thefe,  as 
well  as  other  exprcfhons  of  a  fimilar  kind,  were  penned 
by  his  authority  and  his  direâion.  What,  fnall  the 
Holy  Ghod  confine  his  care  to  the  falvation  of  our 
adverfaiies,  by  avoiding  every  occafion  of  betraying 
them  into  pernicious  errors  ;  \vhile  he  takes  little  or  lo 
heed  to  preferve  us  from  blafphemy  and  idolatry  !  But, 
v-hatever  had  becomiC  of  us,  as  there  is  nothing  fo 
î}recious,  nothing  {o  great,  as  the  incommunicable 
glories  of  the  Godhead  ;  it  might  have  been  expeded, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  take  particular  care,  in 
penning  the  New  Teftament,  that  no  occafion  (liould  be 
^iven  to  Chriilians  to  rob  God  of  his  honours,  by  giving 
them  to  a  mere  creature. 


SECT.   VI.  zSc;  GHAP.   IV. 

*  From  whence  it  appears,  that  what  fonie   of  the:n 

*  anfwer  is  idle,  when  they  fuggeit,  that  the  apodle  calls 
'  this  one  God,  *'  the  Fa-.her,"  by  attribuliouy    as  they 

*  exprefs  it.      For  if  To,  he   would  not  have  intruded 

*  the    vulgar    Chriftians,     but   rather    have    led    them 

*  into  a  pernicious  error.      For  the  people  do  not  knovv^ 

*  in  what  this    attribution   conflits  ;  nay,   many  among 

*  the  learned  have  never  heard  it  fo  much  as  mentioned.' 
— The  term  attribution  may,  perhaps,  be  unknown  to 
many  ;  but  the  thing  is  well  known,  and  it  is  that  about 
which  we  are  chiefly  concerned,  ^'attribution  conflits, 
in  giving  a  name  to  one  only,  which  belongs  to  others. 
For  example  :  As  the  name,  Lord,  belongs  to  both 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  when  it  is  given  to  Chnll  only, 
it  is  called  an  attribution  :  and  ^o,  as  the  name,  God, 
belongs  to  them  both,  it  is  an  attribution  to  give  it  to  tho 
Father  only.  Thofe  gracious  charaders,  Rldeemer. 
and  Saviour,  are  common  to  the  Father  with  Jefus 
Chrirt  ;  when,  therefore,  it  is  afHrmed  of  the  latter, 
**  There  is  none  other  name  under  heaven,  given  among 
*'  men,  whereby  we  mu(l:  be  faved  ;"  it  is  called  an 
attribution^  or  an  appropriation  of  a  name,  common  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  to  the  latter  only. — Shall  we 
fay,  that  the  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  a  love  of 
appreciation^  and  a  love  of  intention^  becaufe  ihefe  terms 
come  from  the  fchools  and  are  not  found  in  the  Bible  ? 
The  namesy  indeed,  are  not  there  ;  but  the  idcasy  inten- 
ded by  them,  are  llrongly  expreHed  in  that  facred 
Volume.  Tht  former  conlifh,  in  loving  God  with  all 
our  hearts  ;  the  latter,  in  fcrfaking  kindred,  property, 
and  life  itfelf,  at  his  command  and  for  his  glory. — So, 
in  the  cafe  before  us.  Either,  then,  cur  opponent  who 
makes  the  objeâion,  mexnt  only,  that  the  term  attribution 
is  ilrange  to  vulgar  Chriftians  ;  or  that  the  things 
reprefented  by  it,  was  equally  unknown.  If  the  term, 
we  have  nothing  to  ûbje6>.  If  the  thing,  his  miflake 
may  be  lec'Ulied  by  Ihewing,  that  in  thefe  words,  *'  Onr 
♦*  Lord,  Jcfus  Chrilï/*  there  is  an  attributioû  pcrfcdij 


!î£C T.   VI.  286  CHAP.   I>. 

fimilar  to  that  which  we  find  in  thefe  ;  **  Ose    God, 
*'  the  Father.'* 

*  If  the  term  God,  be  underflood  in  this  place,   as 

*  peculiar  to  the  Father  ;  either  it  includes  a  particular 

*  excellency,  and  is  taken  for    that  Perfcn  who  is  the 

*  fource  of  the  other  ;  or  for  the  Father,  without  denot- 

*  ing  any  particular  excellency.     If  the  former^  we  have 

*  already   fhewed,    that   they   who    fpeak   thus,   either 

*  contradict     themfelves,    and    acknowledge    that    the 

*  Father  only  is  the  Supreme   God  ;   or   elfe   they  fay 

*  nothing  to  the  purpofe.  If  the  latter^  the  apolHe  mutl 
<  have  fpoken  impertinently.    For  the  quelHon  was  not, 

*  whether //;f  Father  \%  but  one;  but,,  whether  Gc(i\i  but 

*  one;  as  appears  from  the  preceding  words.' — Here 
we  retort  upon  Crellius.  If  the  term  Lord  be  taken  in 
this  place  as  peculiar  to  the  Son  ;  either  it  includes  a 
particular  excellency,  and  is  taken  for  the  Perfon  who 
has  an  original  authority  ;  or  for  one  polTefled  of  domi- 
nion, without  denoting  any  particular  excellency.  Tf 
\k\ç.  former^  they  v/ho  fpeak  thus,  either  contradict  them- 
ielves,  and  acknowledge  that  the  Son  is  the  Supreme 
Lord  ;  or  elfe  they  fay  nothing  to  the  purpofe.  If  ths 
latter^  the  apoHtle  mud  have  fpoken  impertinently.  Fj  . 
the  queilion  v;as  not,  whether  ihe  Son  is  bat  one  ;  bu^ 
V/hether  ths  Lord  is  but  one  ;  as  appears  from  the 
preceding  words. 

Our  adverfaries,  if  they  can,  may  anfvver  this  objec- 
tion :  as  for  us,  we  are  not  concerned  in  it.  For  what 
is  this  argument  but  a  mere  fophifm  ?  The  terra  God, 
by  being  appropriated  to  the  Father,  does  not  lofe  its 
natural  fignification.  It  ftill  denotes  that  infinite  excel- 
lence which  didinguifhes  his  eflence,  to  whom  it  is 
applied,  from  all  that  are  called  gods,  or  lords,  whether 
on  earth,  or  in  heaven.  The  Father.,  who  is  here 
oppofed,  not  to  the  Son,  nor  to  the  Holy  Ghofl,  for 
that  was  not  the  quel'iion  ;  but,  tofalfegods,  to  magifbates, 
and  to  angels,  is  reprefented  as  infinitely  fuperior  to 
**  all  that  is  called  god."     But  w^hat  infurmoiintiibie 


3ECT.  VI.  28/  CHAP.   V. 

difficulty  is  there  in  all  this  ?  Is  not  Jesus  alfo  oppofed, 
in  this  place,  not  to  th^  Father,  lor  that  was  not  the 
queliion  ;  but  to  all  thoie  that  ?.re  called  lords,  ^^'hethtr 
on  earth  or  in  heaven  ? 


CHAPrZll     V, 

An  Ol)jeollon  from  Luke  i.  ^S-  anfwered. 

jfXNOTHER  objedion,  againfl  the  doctrine 
n>aintiined,  is  forntd  by  our  adverfaries  on  the  following 
words  ;  "  The  Holy  GhoU  (hall  come  upon  thee,  and 
<*  the  power  of  the  Highefl:  fiiall  ovcrlhadow  thee  ; 
**  therefore  alfj  tiia'  Holy  Thing  which  fhall  be  born 
'<  of  thee,  fhall  be  called,  the  Son  of  God.'*  From 
hence  they  infer,  that  the  fublime  title,  Son  of  God, 
is  founded  on  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jcfus,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  they  demand,  how  Chriit  could 
be  fo  called,  on  account  of  his  wonderful  conception, 
by  the  power  of  the  Highefl,  if  he  was  the  Son  of  God 
from  eternity  ? 

In  anfvver  to  which  I  obferve  ;  That  God,  in  this 
revelation  of  his  will,  accomodates  his  language  to  the 
capacities  cf  the  perfon  to  whom  he  makes  known  his 
gracious  defjgns.  Thus  he  had  frequently  done  to  the 
Tewifh  prophets.  When  he  revealed  to  thofe  holy  mea 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  it  was  often  under  fuch 
images  as  were  borrowed  from  the  ancient  fanduary, 
with  which  they  v/ere  well  acquainted,  lit  informed 
them,  that  *'  an  altar  fhould  be  ereded  in  the  midfl  of 
*'  Egypt  ;'*  and  that,  from  the  riling  to  the  fetting  fan 
*'  incenfe  fhould  be  offered  with  a  pure  offering.'» 
Such  ideas  were  familiar  to  them  ;  and,  therefore 
Ijpiriiual  things  and  future  events  were  revealed  to  th 


SrCT.  VI.  288  CHAP.  V. 

prophets,  and  the  church  of  old,  under  thefe  images  — 
So  the  angel,  who  appears  to  Mary,  fpeaks  in  a  fimilar 
way.  He  might,  if"  he  had  pîcafed,  have  defcribed 
Jefus  Chrifl:  as  the  Mediator,  who  fhould  reconcile 
heaven  and  earth.  He  might  have  reprefented  him  to 
the  virgin  mother,  as  an  univerfal  Monarch,  according 
to  the  oracle  of  Daniel  ;  as  a  fpiritual  King,  who  (hould 
reign  over  the  hearts  and  confciences  of  men  ;  and  as 
Lord  of  the  univerfe,  having  all  authority  in  heaven  and 
in  earth.  Thefe  things,  however,  he  does  not  mention  ; 
becaufe  it  was  expedient  that  fhe  fhould  be  gradually  led 
into  the  myfleries  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He,  there- 
fore, fpeaks  of  the  re-efiablifhment  of  David's  kingdom, 
which  was  at  that  time  the  objed  of  the  nation's  hope, 
and  mod  familiar  to  the  mind  of  a  Jew.  "  The  Lord 
«*  God,"  fays  Gabriel,  "  fhall  give  unto  him  the  throne 
**  of  his  father  David  ;  and  he  fliall  reign  over  the  houfe 
**  of  Jacob  forever.'' — Now,  as  the  eternal  Sonfhip  of 
Jefus  is  one  of  the  mod  fublime  and  myfterious  dodrines 
in  the  whole  Book  of  God,  we  have  no  rcafon  to  be 
furprifed  if  the  heavenly  meffenger,  in  his  converfe  with 
Mary,  did  not  intend,  by  any  thing  he  faid  of  the 
Lord  Mefiiah  as  the  Son  of  God,  t©  declare  the  proper 
ground  of  his  Divine  filiation  ;  but  only  to  inform  her, 
in  general,  of  his  infinite  dignity,  and  that  his  filial 
relation  to  the  Father  fhould  be  attefled  in  his  miraculous 
conception  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Again  :  The  Scripture  frequently  makes  ufe  of  fuch 
words  to  exprefs  an  event,  as  feem  to  denote  the  caufe. 
So  the  evangelifl  fays,  *'  Therefore  they  could  not 
*'  believe,  hecaufe  that  Efaias  faid  again — ."  Thus  the 
exprefîions  on  which  the  obje<ftion  is  raifed,  feem  to 
denote  the  caufe  for  which  Jefus  Chrift  fhould  be  called, 
the  Son  of  God  ;  but  they  fignify  only  the  event.  For 
the  fenfc  of  the  palTage  is  this  ;  The  Holy  Ghoft  fhall 
come  upon  thee  ;  the  power  of  the  Highed  fhall  over- 
shadow thee  ;  and  it  fball  come  to  pafs,  that  the  Holy 
Thing  which  fliall  be  born  of  thee,  fhall  be  called  the 


.5«CT.  Vr.  2tg  G  HA?.  Y. 

iSon  of  God.  The  particle  tlcreforey  is  not  to  be 
«onfulered  as  pointing  out  the  reafon  v^hy  Jefus  Ihouid 
bear  the  exaited  title  ;  but  why  he  fhould  be  received 
;ind  acknoivîedged  under  it,  by  his  people  :  who  would 
infer,  from  his  miraculous  conception  by  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  and  his  wonderful  birth  of  a  virgin,  that  he  was 
the  **  Child  born,  the  Son  given,"  and  the  glorious 
Immanukl  fpoken  of  in  ancient  prophecy  *. 

But  were  we  to  «nderfland  the  words  in  their  literal 
fenfe,  they  would  not  exprefs  any  thing  really  inconfillenc 
with  what  we  maintain.  For  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  by  which  the  body  of  Jefus  was  conceiv^ed  in 
the  womb,  conferred  upon  him,  as  man,  the  unfpeakable 
^bonour  of  being  called,  the  Son  of  God.  This  cannot 
be  denied,  in  whatever  fenfe  you  underftand  the  phrafe, 
«*  he  (hall  be  called,"  whether  for,  he  fhall  be,  or  he 
flîall  be  denominated.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  conception 
of  Chrifl  by  the  Holy  Ghod,  was  the  reafon  why  that 
which  was  born  of  M uy  is  called  the  Son  oï  God.  For 
as  the  human  nature  of  Jefas  is  hypo'latically  united  to 
the  Divine  ;  it  partakes  of  this  and  other  glorious  titles 
which  are  given  to  the  Meihah,  in  confeqaence  of  his 
miraculous  conceprioi).  The  reafon  why  the  humanity 
of  Chrilt  is  fon^erimes,  though  in  a  figurative  fenfe, 
invelted  v/ith  fiich  titles  and  qualities  as  belong  only  to 
the  eternal  Son  of  God,  or  the  uncreated  Wotd  ;  is,  its 
ptrj'jivil  union  with  the  Word. 

Admitting,  however,  that  there  were  a  real  difficulty 
in  the  text  j  a  dilficulty  intended,  by  the  vviiaom  of  God, 
to  exercife  our  humility  and  fairh  ;  yet  our  opponents 
would  gain  bui  little  adv:in^age  by  it  ;  becaufe  it  is  eafily 
proved  that  the  tide.  Son  of  God,  is  eflablifiied  on 
different  founditions  from  that  of  his  miraculous  con- 
Cepiion  He  is  frequently  called,  God's  beloved  Son; 
his  oivn  Son;  his  only  Son;  atid  his  only  be^ouen  Son» 
V/e  ought,  confequently,  to  inquire,  not  only  into  his 

*  Ifaiah  vii.  14.  and  is.  6. 

Bb 


'•EC T.  VJ.  290  CKAP.  v. 

general  characler  Son;  but  alfo  into  thofe  ideas  cf 
d'yiingiiifibjg  excellence  which  are  annexed  to  it,  by 
triiiuus  remaikiible  epithets. 

Our  adveriaries  being  determined  not  to  acknowledge 
Jefus  Chriit  as  tlie  Son  of  God,  by  eternal  generation, 
endeavour  to  eflablini  the  title  on  the  following  louo- 
;dations.  His  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghoii — His 
invefliture  in  the  offices  of  prophet,  prielt,  and  king — 
'His  uniiion  by  the  Holy  Spirit — His  refurreaion  from 
;the  dead — And  his  exaltation,  after  his  luffcrings.  Of 
•ail  which  in  their  ordgr. 

In  regard  to  tlie  firjl  fuppofed  ground  of  the  aiigufl 
charadter,  I  would  allc  ;  Whether  tht  mere  advantage 
of  having  been  conceived  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  greater 
than  that  of  being  formed  immediately  by  the  power  of 
God,  in  a  ftate  of  holineis  ;  as  were  the  angels,  and  thfe 
foals  of  our  firlt  parents  ?  For,  to  be  formed  by  the 
iSpirit  of  God,  and  by  the  power  of  God,  is,  on  the 
principles  of  our  opponents,  the  fame  thing.  This, 
therefore,  they  mu(i  allow.  Confequently,  though  Jtfus 
]:iight  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  becaufe  he  was 
formed  by  the  Divine  Spirit  ;  yet  the  tide  would  be 
common  to  him  with  angels,  whom  God  created  by 
Iiis  own  immediate  power.  He  would  then  be  the  Son, 
bat  not  the  only  Son  of  God. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  faid  ;  *  Jefus  might  be  called 

*  the  Son  of  God,  in  diflindion  from  angels,  becaufe 

*  ihey  have  not  a  father,  being  created  and  unbegotten 

*  inielligences  ;  which  was  the  cafe  of  our  firlt  parents, 

*  and  is  true  of  the  fouls  of  men  in  general.    But  it  was 

*  proper  that  Chrifl,  being  like  other  men,  and  having 

*  a  mother,  (houid  alfo  have  a  father.  Yet,  rot  having 
<  had  one  as  other  men,  the  Vv'ant  of  ordinary  generation 

*  being  fupplied  by  the  Holy  Spirit ,  we  need  not  wonder, 

*  either  that  he  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  or  that  he  is 

*  thus  denominated  in  diitinflion  from  pure  intelligences.' 
— This  .reply  is  weak.  For  the  charader  Son,  own 
Son,  and  only  begotten  Son,  though  luch  a  fublimc 


SECT.  VI.  291  CHAP.   V. 

title,  is  of  no  real  digitity,  according  to  this  argument, 
Becaufe,  upon  this  principle,  the  reafon  why  Chrill  is 
called  the  only  Son  oy  God,  rather  than  the  firit  man, 
or  any  of  the  angels,  is  only  this  ;  They,  having  been 
formed  immediately  by  Divine  power,  were  fiOt  con- 
ceived in  the  womb,  as  he  was  to  whom  the  charaâcr 
is  appropriated  and  peculiar.  Eut,  give  me  leave  to  aîk. 
What  excellence  is  imparted  to  a  creatuie,  produced 
immediately  by  Omnipotence,  merely  on  account  ot 
having  been  conceived  in  the  zuomb  ?  The  Scripture 
teaches  us  to  conlider  this  title,  The  only  Son  of 
God,  as  one  that  is  very  eminent  and  glorious  ;  as  one 
that  diftinguifhts  Jefus  Chriil  from  all  the  angels,  and 
proclaims  his  domiiiion  over  them.  But  it  vv-ould  be 
ubdird  to  imagine  ihut  he  beius  the  exalted  charade r 
latiicr  tiian  any  of  llj.:m,  bcciiule,  ihijugh  they  were 
formed  immediately  by  the  power  of  God,  in  conimo'? 
with  him  ;  yei  he  had  iht  Jingular  advaniage  of  beii.g 
formed  in  the  womb  of  a  virgin.  Nay,  there  is  fome- 
thing  more  noble,  in  being  formed  immediately  by 
Divine  power,  without  the  intervention  of  either  father 
or  motiier  ;  than  in  being  farmed  without  a  father,  in 
the  womb  of  a  m.other,  by  the  Almighty.  Becaufe  the 
lefs  fécond  caufes  intervene,  in  the  produ<5iion  of  a 
Divine  work,  the  more  immediate  relation  it  has  to 
God  ;  and  immediate  produflion  carries  the  appearance 
at  lead  of  more  excellence,  than  that  which  is  mediate. 
So,  the  creation  of  man,  for  inllance,  was  more  perfert 
than  his  generation. — If,  then,  Jefus  deferve  to  be  called 
the  Son  of  God,  becaufe  he  was  formed  by  Omnipotence, 
with  the  intervention  of  a  mother  ;  Adam,  v/ho  was 
formed  by  the  power  of  God,  without  father  and  without 
mother,  deferves  a  higher  title  ;  and  the  angels,  who 
were  formed  in  a  more  perfed:  manner  than  our  fiift 
parent,  becaufe  not  formed  of  any  pre-exiilent  matter, 
mull  be  worthy  of  a  more  glorious  title  than  he. 

Again  :   If  the  Sonîhip  of  Chrift  refulted  from  his 
being  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghofl,  the  Divijne  Spirit, 
J3  b  2 


o^iCT.  VI.  2gX  CHAP.  Y» 

rather  than  the  firft  Pevfon  in  the  ever-blefled  Trinity» 
would  be  properly  denominated  the  Father  of  our  L.ord; 
becaufe  that  efFeâ:,  on  which  the  filiation  of  Jefus  is 
fuppoled  to  depend,  was  more  immediately  produced 
by  the  former,  than  by  the  latter,  of  thofe  Divine 
Perfons.  But  this  is  evidently  falfe  ;  being  contrary  to 
the  whole  current  of  facred  Scripture. —  Further  :Thougli 
the  conception  of  Jefus  was  truly  miraculous  and  very 
Avonderful,  yet  it  extended  only  to  his  human  nature. 
But  the  word  cf  God  does  not  rcpreient  the  Sonfhip  of 
Chrift,  as  terminating  in  him  as  man.  No  ;  that 
iiifallible  rule  of  our  faith  fpeaks  of  it,  as  relating  to  his 
Divine  Perfon.  As  man,  he  was  the  feed  of  the 
woman  and  the  Ton  of  David,  in  contradilUndtion  to  his 
briing  the  Son  of  God.  Now  it  is  evident,  that  his 
being  the  Son  of  God,  cannot  arife  from  that  which 
conftituted  him  the  fon  of  man  ;  for  the  fonfliips  being 
io  widely  different,  the  foundations  of  them  cajinot  be 
the  fame  ;  cannot  but  be  equally  different,  correfponding 
to  the  two  natures  united  in  his  wonderful  Perfon,  ag 
Immanuel.  Agreeable  to  thofe  words  ;  *'  Concerning 
"  his  Son  Jefus  Chrift,  cur  Lord  ;  who  was  made  of 
•'  the  feed  of  David,  according  to  the  flefh — Whofe  are 
*'  the  fad^ers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  fleni, 
•'  Chrift  came  ;  who  is  over  all  God  blefîed  for  ever.'* 
*  But  the  conception  of  Chrift,   by  the  power  of  the 

*  Holy  Ghoft,   is  not  the  only  foundation  on  which  the 

*  title  is  eftabliflied.'  If  lo,  different  reafons  of  the 
glorious  charadter  muft  be  fought  ;  and  our  opponents 
inuft  difclaim  the  advantage  they  pretend  to  have,  from 
the  text  under  confideration.  If  they  fuppofe  the 
evahgelift,  in  this  pafTage,  to  point  out  the  only  founda- 
tion of  the  title,  they  contradiâ:  themfelves.  But  if 
they  confider  the  charailer  as  having  oiher  foundations, 
then  this  text  cannot  be  fuppofed  to  exclude  others  ; 
nor,  conlequently,  to  oppofe  that  of  eternal  generation. 

The  fécond  pretended  ground  of  the  fublime  title,  is. 
The  invcjîiture  of  Jefus  Chrift  in  his  mediatorial  oSEces. 


SECT.  VI.  293  -CHAP.  V, 

In  proof  of  which  they  adduce  the  following  text  : 
*'  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God 
*'  came, — fay  ye  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath  farnfîified 
*'  and  fent  into  the  world.  Thou  blafphemefl  ;  becaufe  I 
**  faid,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?"  That  He  who  was  fanc- 
tified  and  fent  is  the  Son  of  God,  is  an  undoubted  truth  ; 
but  that  his  fandification  and  million  were  the  ground  of 
■his  Sonfliip,  is  far  from  being  proved  by  this  pafTage. 
There  is  a  wide  and  manife(t  difference,  between  a 
claun  of  relalion  to  any  one,  and  affigning  the  ground  of 
that  relation.  Of  the  former  y  our  Lord  here  f])eak.s  ;  of 
the  laiter,  he  is  entirely  hlent. — Again  :  Though  princes 
and  magidrates  are  called  ^oJr,  in  the  facred  Scripture, 
yet  we  do  not  read  of  any  individual  among  them  being 
called  THE  Son  of  God  ;  much  lefs  is  any  of  them  fo 
denominated,  in  that  emphatical  and  frequent  ufe  of  the 
title,  in  which  it  is  applied  to  our  Immanuel.  Befides, 
if  Jefiis  Chrifl  were  the  Son  of  God,  either  merely,  or 
])rincipally,  on  account  of  his  mediatorial  olfices;  he 
mufl  have  been  much  more  fo,  after  he  entered  on  his 
public  miniilry,  than  he  was  before.  But  this  cannot 
be  fuppofed,  with  the  leaft  (hadow  of  rcafon.  Dare  our 
opponents  affirm,  that  the  Sonfliip  of  Jefus  commenced 
at  his  baptifm,  when  the  Father  faid,  '<  This  is  mv 
«  beloved  Son  ?" 

Again  :  If  Jefus  be  the  Son  of  God,  on  account  of 
his  orices,  he  niuH:  be  fo,  either  by  nature,  or  by 
adoption,  or  by  a  metaphor  ;  for  we  know  not,  as  yet, 
of  any  other  way.  Not  by  natursy  on  account  of  his 
o^ica  ;  for  that  implies  a  contradicHiion.  Nor  by  adoption; 
for  how  can  his  bearing  an  o.'Hce  be  the  caufe  of  his 
adoption  ?  But  if  it  were,  this  would  not  diftinguilh  him 
from  his  difciples  ;  who  are  ail  the  children  of  God  by 
adoption.  Nor  is  He  the  Son  of  God  by  a  metaphor. 
For,  on  fuch  a  fuppofition,  the  Sonfhip  of  Chrifl  is 
greatly  inferior  to  that  of  believers.  They  are  the  fons 
oî  God  by  adoption,  and  alfo  by  regeneration.  Their 
ï<ii\\^ïi\'2i  confequently,  is  much  fuperior  to  a  merely 
Bb3 


SECT.  VI.  294  CHAP.  V. 

mefap/jorical  rehnon. — Ooce  more:  When  we  confidcr 
our  Lord  as  inverted  with  various  offices,  we  view  him 
as  Mediator  ;  but,  as  Mediator,  he  is  the  Father's 
fervant,  and  is  repeatedly  fo  called.  Whoever  imagines, 
therefore,  that  Chrid  is  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of  his 
offices,  confounds  the  didinft,  the  oppofite  ideas,  of  a 
Jon  and  z  fervant.  To  fuppofe  that  our  Lord  is  the  Son 
of  God,  by  office,  or  on  account  of  his  mediatorial 
undertaking  ;  and  to  aflert  that  he  is  God,  by  office, 
are  equally  indefenfible,  and  equally  abfurd  :  fo  that  he 
who  can  demonftrate  the  former)  has  no  reafon  to 
defpair  of  proving  the  latter. 

Some  there  are  that  cordially  acknowledge  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  are  far  from  denying  the  proper 
Deity  of  Chrilt,  who  yet  maintain,  That  his  exalted 
chara61er.  Son  oï-  God,  is  œconomicaî,  and  founded 
in  his  mediation.  But  if  fo,  it  had  its  rife  in  a  fovereign 
at^l  of  the  Divine  will  ;  a.nd,  confequently,  if  infinite 
v/ifdom  and  abfolute  fovereignty  had  fo  determined,  He 
who  is  called  the  Father^  might  have  been  the  .S'en. 
Nay,  on  this  hypothefis,  had  not  man  fallen,  and  had 
not  grace  provided  a  Mediator  ;  neither  the  emphatical 
title,  nor  the  fublime  relation  figniiied  by  it,  would  ever 
have  been  known  in  the  world,  nor  ever  exifted. 

The  third  rtàÇoti  affigned  by  them,  as  the  foundation 
of  the  exalted  charader,  is,  His  Divine  un£iion.  But 
here  they  confounded  the  effed  with  its  caufe  ;  the' 
character,  with  the  thing  charadlerized.  That  God. 
gave  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Jefus  Chrift,  as  man,  is  allowed  : 
but  he  vouchfafed  the  Divine  gift  without  meafurc, 
becaufe  he  was  his  Son.  This  heavenly  undion  did  not 
conftitute,  but  fuppofed  him  to  be,  the  Son  of  God. — 
The  Holy  Spirit,  indeed,  is  granted  to  believers  ;  to 
the  children  of  God  in  general,  as  their  common 
privilege.  But  the  gift  is  not  beftowed,  the  privilege  is 
pot  enjoyed,  prior  to  their  adoption  ;  no,  both  the  one 
and  the  other  are  thebleffed  fruits  of  their  filial  relation 
to  God.   And  fo  Jefus  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghofl, 


SECT.  VI.  295  CHAP.  \% 

hecaufe  he  luas  the  Son  of  God  ;  not  that  he  m\ghl  he  fo. 
—  Befides,  if  he  had  been  honoured  with  fo  illuftrious  a 
title  as,  THE  Son  of  God,  only  or  principally,  on 
account,  of  the  gifts  he  received  ;  yet  he  could  not  for 
that  reafon  have  been  called  God's  only  Son  :  becaufa 
many  others  have  received  the  gif^s  of  the  Spirit,  though 
not  to  fuch  a  degree.  But  why  Ihould  I  here  enlarge, 
feeing  it  is  evident  from  the  Scripture,  that  Chrift  was 
the  Son  of  God  prior  to  his  inauguration,  his  baptifm, 
his  undion  ? 

The  refurredion  o^  Chrifl  from  the  dead,  is  th^  fourth 
foundation  on  which  ouropponents  endeavour  to  elfablifh 
the  glorious  title.  But  our  Divine  Redeemer  was  the 
Son  of  God,  his  own  Son,  and  his  only  Son,  before  that 
ilJullrious  event  took  place  ;  as  appeats  from  a  multitude 
of  te(Hmonies,  v;hich  need  not  be  recited.  It  is,  indeed, 
faid,  *<  He  v/as  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
"  power — by  the  refurredion  from  the  dead  ;"  but  theii 
the  v/ords  evidently  fuppofe,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God 
before  his  refurreflion.  His  triumphant  refuircsflion  did' 
not  conjlitutey  but  declare  him  to  be,  the  only  begotten  of 
the  Father. — Befides,  admitting  that  he  might,  with 
propriety,  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  bccaufe  he  was 
raifed  from  the  dead  ;  yet  he  could  not  be  called  his 
ONLY  Son  ;  for  fome  have  rifen,  and  millions  fliall  rife 
from  the  dead,  as  well  as  he. — Further  :  If  Jefus  bear 
the  auguft  chara<5ter  on  this  ground,  it  mufl  be  only  in  a 
way  of  analogy  and  by  a  metaphor  ;  much  in  the  fame 
fenfe  as  the  angels,  being  created  by  Jehovah,  are  called 
the  fons  of  God.  I  faid,  by  a  meta^kory  or  only  in  a 
way  of  analogy.  For  I  cannot  perceive  that  the 
refurreflion  of  a  man  from  the  dead,  is  any  more  like  a 
generation,  or  gives  a  better  claim  to  the  fublime  title, 
than  his  creation.  Yet  there  arc  very  few  who  would 
not  be  offended  to  hear,  that  Chrift  is  the  Son  of  God 
only  by  a  metaphor.  For  every  one  may  eafily  fee,  that 
believers  in  common  would  be  the  fons  of  God  in  a 
higher  and  nobler  fenfe  than  Chrid  himfelf,  were  that 


^HCT.  Vî.  -296  CHAP.  V. 

the  cafe  ;  they  being  more  properly  the  Tons  of  God  by 
adoption,  than  he  can  be  in  a  fenfe  that  is  merely  figura- 
tive.— But,  whatever  be  the  real  ground  of  the  glorious 
charader,  it  is  manifeft,  that  it  mult  be  fomeihing  peculiar 
to  Jefus  Chrift  ;  fomething  in  which  none  upon  earth, 
nor  any  in  heaven,  befides  himfelf,  has  a  fhare  ;  becaufe 
none  but  He,  either  is,  or  ought  to  be  called,  **  the 
"  ONLY  begotten  of  the  Father — the  only  Son  of  God." 
^htjifth  reafon  affigned  for  the  exalted  charader,  is. 
The  fovere'ign  exaltation  of  Jefus  to  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  after  his  death  and  refurredion.  But  I  need 
not  fpend  much  time  in  refuting  this  conjeflure  ;  becaufe 
many  of  the  arguments  already  advanced  return  upon 
this  occafion.  1  fhall,  therefore,  only  aflc.  Was  not 
Chrift  the  Son  of  God,  his  own  Son,  and  his  only 
begotten  Son,  before  his  exaltation  ?  Muft  we  nevef 
diitinguifti  between  his  bein^  a  Son,  and  his  entering  on 
the  actual  pofTeffion  of  his  inheritance  ?  Jefus,  the 
Mediator,  I  allow,  entered  on  the  full  pofleffion  of  the 
inheritance,  when  he  afcended  into  heaven  ;  but  does  it 
from  hence  follow,  that  he  was  not  the  Son  of  God 
before  I- — We  may  afHrm,  that  God  anointed  his  Son  ^ 
tJiat  he  fent  his  Son,  to  be  our  pried,  prophet,  and  king  ; 
tliat  he  raifed up^  and  highly  exalted  his  Son;  becaufe  the 
wordoflnfpiration  affures  us  of  thefe  things.  Confequently, 
inftead  of  faying  that  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God,  becaufe 
lie  was  anointed — was  invefted  with  various  offices — 
was  raifed  from  the  dead,  and  highly  exalted  ;  we 
fliould  rather  fay.  He  was  anointed  with  the  Holy 
Ghoil,  and  inverted  with  his  mediatorial  offices  ;  became 
the  lirft-fruits  of  them  that  fleep,  and  was  exalted  after 
his  refurredion  ;  becaufe  he  was  the  Son  of  God  prior 
to  thefe  events.  And  if  fo,  we  mud  either  confider 
his  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghofl,  as  the  only  reafon 
of  the  illuftrious  title,  which  we  have  already  difproved  ; 
or  we  mult  have  recourfe  to  a  more  ancient  generation  *, 

•  Perfedly  conformable  to  the  reafoning  of  our  Author,  in 
•tliis -Chapter,  are  the  language  and  fentinicnts  of  that  fenfibic 


SECT.  Vf.  297*  CHAP.  T?. 

But  here,  a?  through  the  whole  fubje^fV,  we  mu(l 
carefully  dil^inguiih  the  mn^tj  of  lur  Lord's  eter  iaI 
Sonlliip  fron  the  Sonihip  itfelf  The  //Uter  is  revealed, 
as  an  ohjed  of  faith,  by  the  Spirit  of  i  if-ilhbility  ;  while 
the  former  lies  concealed  in  impénétrable  darknefs  S 
{hall  not,  therefore,  attempt  to  pKplain  the  eternat 
generation  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  is,  I  acknowledge» 
far  above  all  our  exprefû  )ns  and  all  our  thoughts  :  nor 
"do  I  wonder  that  all  the  comparifons  which  the  wit  of 
man  can  invent,  in  order  to  illu(trate  the  fuliject,  coiie 
vaOiy  (hort  of  their  defigned  end  But  1  have  no  need 
of  fuch  comparifons  to  fatisfymy  reafon  and  confcience. 
For  if  1  do  not  allow  that  there  are  many  great  and 
interelUng  realities  which  as  to  the  modus  of  their 
exigence,  are  abfolutely  incomprehenfible  by  me,  I  am 
not  capable  of  reafoning  cither  in  religion  or  nature. 
But  if  this  be  granted,  the  eternal  Filiation  of  the  Divine 
Son  being  to  me  incomj)rehenrible,  is  far  from  affording 
a  fufHcient  reafon  to  queilion  the  reality  of  it.  1  ought 
father  to  inquire,  Whether  I  can,  without  impious 
arrogance,  doubt  of  its  truth,  it  being  clearly  revealed  ia 
the  Bible. 

By  examining  the  Scripture  I  am  fully  convinced, 
that  Chrill  exiltcd  before  his  conception  in  the  womb  of 


»nd  ingenious  writer,   Mr.  Joiim  M'Laurim.     •  If  that  name, 

•  God's  own,  or  proper  >()\,  figjnified  his  being  produced  hj 

•  God  the  Father,  it  would  a-rrec  to  all  creatures      11  it  lij^nified 

*  only  fomc  imperfedl  likentfs  to  the  nature  of  the  F<ither,  it 
»■  would  agree  to  all  living  elpccially  all  rational  crcaturcfc. 
'   If  it   fign.fied   only    the    higheft    rcfeniblance,     or     likenef». 

*  to   God,    that    any    creature   has,    it   might  agree    to  many; 

♦  lince  no  mere  creature  can  have  fo  much  ol  God,  but  another 

♦  might  be  raifed  to  have  as  much,  or  more.     If  it  figniSed  hi* 

♦  being  created  immediately  by  the  Father,  whereas  other  being» 

*  are  immediately  created  by  the  Son  ;  all  other  rational  creaturei 

*  might  have  had  the  fame  relation  to  the  Father,  and  would^ 

♦  however   have  the  fame  relation  to  Chrill  that  he  hath  to  God. 

*  The  name  of.  Gen's  own  t'ON,  therefore,  cannot  agree  to  sr.r 

*  mere  creature.'    Scrmcm  emiJ^fa^s,  page  137.  Edit.  2d 


SECT.   VI.  298  CKAP.   VI. 

the  virgin  ;  this  we  have  proved  in  the  preceding  Seâiont 
—  i  hat, before  hisincarnation.  hewr^s  THt  Son  of  God  ; 
this  ihe  Holy  Ghoii  cxprefsly  afltrts — That  he  is  the 
8on  of  God,  noc  by  adcpuon,  much  Icfs  by  a  metaphor, 
but  in  a  proper  Ici.ie  ;  and  htrtehe  is  called,  '•  the 
*•  ONLY  BfcGOTTtN  SoN  OF  Gou" — 1  hat,  as  the Son  of 
God,  he  pofTcfftd  a  glory  v.  ith  iht  Fathe»  lejore  iht  tx^jrld 
i/e^^an;  of  this  he  himftlt  afl'uits  us — 1  hat  he  is  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  and  Mie  with  the  Father — That 
he  is  equal  wiih  God,  and  the  Irue  God  ;  as  appears 
from  the  foregoing  pages.  Confequently,  how  incom- 
prehenfible  loever  the  modus  of  his  Divine  Filiation  may 
be,  1  cannot,  without  reje«5ting  the  teflimony  of  God, 
icfuie  my  affent  to  the  reaiity  o£  his  Eternal  Son  sh ii». 


CHAPTER     FL 

Other  Objedions  anfwcrcâ. 

UUR  opponents  obje(51,  with  confidence,  all 
thofe  pafTages  of  Scripture  which  exprefs  the  idea  of 
dependence,  in  Jefus  Chrid,  upon  the  Father.  They, 
therefore,  frequently  confront  us  with  thofc  texts  which 
•affert  ;  That  Chrift  *'  does  nothing  of  himfelf  ;'*  that 
he  does  *'  thofe  works  which  the  Father  gave  him  to  do  ;'* 
that  "  the  Son  knoweth  not  the  hotir  of  the  la(t  judg- 
♦'  ment;"  that  *'  the  Father  is  greater  than  he  ;"  and 
that  *'  the  Son  (hall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the 
*»  Father,"  at  the  confummation  of  all  things — Oh 
each  of  thefe,  and  on  finfiilar  pafîages,  they  argue  againft 
us.  But  as  they  make,  in  reality,  but  one  difficulty, 
we  fhall  confider  them  altogether,  and  give  them  but 
one  reply. 


SECT.  VI.  299  CHAP.  vr. 

Here,  then,  it  may  be  obferved,  That  we  frequently 
iwect  with  fuch  ileclarations  in  Scripture,  as  are.  in 
cpptarance^  directly  oppofite  to  thefe.  'I'here  we  behold 
our  Lord  acting  according  to  his  own  will  ;  acting  ^vitK 
a  fovereign  authority  ;  ading  as  abfolutely  indtpt^ndent. 
*'  Be  it  unto  thee  even  as  thou  wilt — 1  will,  be  thoa 
*'  clean — Thy  fins  be  forgiven  thee.'*  There  alfo  we 
are  aflured,  that  he  is,  '*  one  with  the  Father  and  equal 
■**  with  God  ;  that  He  *'  knoweth  all  things,  and  of  his 
**  kingdom  there  (hall  be  no  end." — Now  thefe  pafTages, 
.with  many  of  a  fimilar  kind,  appear  contradidory  to 
-ihofe  on  which  our  adverfaries  argue  ;  but  they  are  not, 
they  cannot  be  fo,  in  reality:  becaufe  they  were  all 
indited  by  the  fame  Spirit,  who  is  not  liable  to  error  and 
contradidion.  Confequently,  of  two  hypothefes,  that 
which  makes  them  clalh  and  renders  them  irreconcilable, 
murt  be  falfe  ;  and  that  which  proves  their  confiliency, 
bids  fair  to  be  true,  and  is  abundantly  preferable.  Tiie 
former,  I  am  abundantly  peifuaded,  is  the  character  of 
the  Soc'mian,  the  latter  oï  our  hypothelis. 

By  what  medium,  for  initance,  will  the  Socinians 
fliew  me,  that  Chrilt  is  equal  with  his  Father,  and  yet 
inferior  X.0  him?  For,  according  to  them,  he  is  inferior, 
infinitely  inferior  to  the  Father,  by  nature.  Is  he,  then, 
equal  to  him  by  his  offices?  Impoiuble  :  t!ie  fuppofition 
is  big  with  abfurdity.  For,  in  regard  to  his  offices,  he 
ii  evidently  tmk  sertant  of  God;  he  is  not,  he 
cannot,  therefore,  be  equal  with  him,  on  that  account. 
For  a  common  fervant  to  fay,  *  I  am  equal  to  my 
*  mafl^er,'  would  be  infolence  ;  for  a  miniller  of  Itate 
to  aiTert  it,  would  be  a  fpecies  of  high-treafon  againil 
Lis  fovereign. 

With  what  confiftency  can  our  opponents  maintain 
that  Chr(t  knows  all  things,  and  yet  is  ignorant  of  the 
time  fixed  for  one  of  the  g'-eatefl  events  that  ever  did, 
or  ever  will  take  place  in  the  univerfe?  The  dillindion 
between  nature  and  ofiice,  is  of  no  ufe  here.  For 
kuo-wUdge  is  a  property  of  nature  :  fomething,  therefore, 


SECT.  VU  300  CHAP.  VI. 

belonging  to  the  nature  of  Jefus  muft  be  in  queflion. 
Will  they  fay,  *  When  Peter  declares  that  our  Lord 
*  knows  a//  things,  thai  he  does  not  fpeak  in  the  general?' 
But  what  is  Ipeaking  in  the  general,  if  not  niaking  ufe  of 
general  exprtilions?  Beficles,  Peter,  from  a  general 
principle,  draws  a  particular  conclufion.  *'  Lord  thoU 
•»  knowert  aft  things,  thou  knoweft  that  /  I(n>e  thee.*' 
As  if  he  had  faid,  Lord,  1  love  thee  ;  and  thou  muft 
.'know  that  1  love  thee  ;  for  thou  art  not  ignorant  of  any 
thing. — I'o  fuppofe  the  apollle  was  under  a  midake, 
when  he  fo  exprefled  himleif,  has  no  fhadow  of  reafon. 
i3ecaufeif  he  was,  he  uttered  blafphemy,  by  attributing 
«omnifcience  to  Jtfus  Chiiit;  which  belongs  only  to 
*God  ;  and  becaufe  his  holy  and  humble  Mailer  would 
not  have  rewarded  blafphemy  by  faying,  »*  Feed  my 
•♦  fheep." 

How  can  they  reconcile  thofe  paffages  which  inform 
'tis,  that  Chrift  dots  nothing  of  hinifclf;  that  he  piayed 
at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ;  and  that  the  Father  always 
hears  him;  with  others  svhich  reprefent  him,  as  working 
miracles  by  his  own  will  and  his  own  puwer  ?  H  he  be 
a  mere  man  he  depends  on  God  for  hrs  exiflencc  every 
moment,  and  was  entirely  beholden  to  the  Great 
Sovereign  for  every  exertion  of  power  in  the  perfornjancc 
of  his  miraciilous  works  But  if  fo,  how  carre  he  ro 
fpeak  with  fuch  an  air  of  Divine  authority  and  of  Divine 
power,  *'  I  WILL,  Bb  THOU  CLKAN  ?"  Had  Mofes, 
or  Paul,  expreifcd  himfelf  after  this  manner,  he  would, 
vndoi  btedly,  have  been  guilty  of  blafphemy.  Nor  can 
The  diflinéîion  between  office  and  nature,  be  of  the  leaft 
iervice  on  this  occafion. 

Nor  is  their  hvpothefis  any  better  calculated  to 
Tccorcile  ■  hat  the  Sciipture  afferts  about  the  perpetuity 
of  out  Lord's  kingdom,  with  hat  it  fays  corcerning 
his  /fe/ivtrit'g  of  if  up  to  the  Father.  For  as  according 
to  'hem.  he  does  not  reign  by  tiatvte,  but  only  in  virtue 
of  his  r^rcs;  it  dots  not  appear  how  his  kingdom  can 
i)e  eierrul.     Nay,    it  neceflari.ly  follows  thai  it  muft 


éLZ'T.  VI.  301  cifAi».  v:. 

corne  to  a  period,  if  his  offices  ào  Ço. — The  feemin^ 
cjntradiâions,  therefore,  between  the  different  pafTagcs, 
remain  in  all  their  force,  as  to  any  rehef  wliich  can  be 
afforded  by  their  iiypothefis.  If,  then,  we  be  c&S.z 
pcrfecliy  to  reconcile  thcfe  apparently  jarring  texts,  tli^y 
mull  allow  that  oar  fcntiiiisnis  have  a  manifcit  and  gr<:^i 
advantage  over  theirs. 

Though  the  dilhn<ft:on  oî  nature  and  fi/Jice^  which  is 
fundamental  in  their  hypoihefis,  be  of  no  fervicc  here  ; 
yet  ours  of  tiuo  dijUnci  natures  in  the  Pcrfon  of  Chnit, 
which  is  elfential  to  the  fylkm  embraced  by  uj,  u 
calculated  to  anfwer  the  important  end.  Nothing  mor^ 
cafy,  nothing  more  natural,  than  to  reconcile  one 
Scripture  with  another,  on  the  foundalion  of  this 
diflin»fUon.  For  example  :  Jcfus  Chrifl  is  man,  and 
therefore  inferior  to  the  Father  ;  He  is  God,  and 
therefore  equal  with  the  Failitr.  He  is  man,  and 
therefore  ignorant  of  feme  things  ;  He  is  God,  and 
therefore  mufl  be  omnifcicnt.  He  is  man,  and  there- 
fore mult  be  dependent  on  the  Firll  Caufe  ;  he  prays  and 
is  heard.  He  is  God  ;  to  adt,  therefore,  he  ne;;d  only 
to  will  ;  for  by  willing  lie  ccnimands,  and  by  con.manding 
he  executes.  *'  I  will,  bk  thou  clkan.*'  He  is 
man,  and  therefore  may  receive  a  dominion,  which  is 
not  natural  to  him  ;  he  may  alfo  receive  it  for  a  ccrtaia 
ti.ne  ;  after  which,  he  fhall  deliver  up  his  dekgated 
kingdom  and  dominion  to  die  Father.  He  is  God,  and 
therefore  has  an  everlalling  kingd:;ni,  a  nectiTary  domi- 
nion that  (hall  never  have  an  end. 

Crelliiis  will  reply,  ♦  This  diitiosTtion  of  t^jjo  natures 
*  in  Chri.'i,  is  a  fi^Sion.*  But  if  fo,  tlie  bcrirtures  are 
abfolutely  irreconcilable.  Befides,  if  we  (tarch  the 
Volume  of  Ir.fpiration,  we  fhall  find  this  diflinâion 
flrongly  marked  and  firmly  laid.  There  it  is  afhrrncd, 
that  ''THE  Word."  who  created  all  things,  "  v/a3 
*'  MADE  FLESH  ;"  and  that  *•  God  was  manifefl  in 
*'  THt  FLhSH."  Thcfe  afleriions  mull  imply,  that  the 
Divine  nature  was  united  to  the  human,  in  the  Wondeiful 
C  C 


SECT.  VI.  302  CHAP.  TI. 

Perfon  of  Jefus  Chrift.     The  fame  fundamental  truth 
is  exprelfed  in  the  name,  **  Immanuelj   God  with 

And  if  you  examine  the  pafTages  produced  againft  us 
by  our  opponents,  you  may  foon  perceive,  that  this 
diftindlion  of  natures  in  our  Mediator,  is  quite  confident 
with  their  fcopc  and  defign.  For  example  :  "  If  ye 
*'  loved  n-ie,  ye  would  rejoice,  becaufe  I  faid,  I  go  unto 
^'  the  Father  :  for  my  Father  is  greater  than  1.'*  It  is 
eu  man  that  He  leaves  his  difciples;  for,  in  other  refpeds, 
he  engages  to  continue  with  them  to  the  end  of  the 
world  :  it  is  of  himfelf  as  going  away  Jpeed'ily,  that  he 
fpeaks  the  words  ;  and,  confequently,  he  fpeaks  of 
himfelf  as  man,  when  he  fays,  "  My  Father  is  greater 
«•  than  1." — And  as  to  thofe  ideas  ol  dependence  which 
he  exprefies  in  other  places,  the  feveral  palTages  may  be 
eafily  explained,  confiftently  with  the  analogy  of  faith 
and  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  either  by  the  ditlindion  of 
two  natures  i  or  by  the  office  of  Mediator;  or  by  that 
relation  which  fubfiits  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
But  that  peculiar  mode  of  (ubfillence  nut  being  revealed 
in  the  Scripture,  it  would  be  prefumptuous  folly  in  mc 
to  attempt  an  inquiry  into  it  :  and  I  again  declare,  that 
I  will  make  no  inquiries,  on  this  myfterious  profound 
fubjeél»    which    ar£   curious    and    philofophical.      For. 

BIVINITY    CONSISTS    IN    SPEAKING   WITH   THE    SCRIP- 
TURE, AND  IN   GOING   NO   FWRTHER. 


SECT*   YI.  303  CHAP.  VII, 


CHAPTER     VIL 

Some tionfi derations  adapted  to  relieve  the  mind  refpeAing  the 
Difficulties  which  atteiKl  this  Great  Myftery. 

JHl  AVTNG  anfwered  the  principal  obje^lions, 
which  our  opponents  advance  againft  us,  it  is  proper  we 
ïhould  now  inquire  ;  How  we  may  faiisfy  our  own  minds, 
as  to  the  difficulties  attending  the  grand  truth,  which  it 
has  been  the  bufinefs  of  this  IVeatile  to  e/tab!ifh  :  And, 
in  Older  to  this,  the  following  conliderations  are  pre- 
fented  to  the  reader's  notice. 

Almoft  every  thing  in  the  fyftem  of  nature,  notwith- 
Iflanding  the  great  improvements  in  modern  j)hilorophy, 
is  attended  with  difficulties.  If  you  look  up  to  the 
heavens,  you  (land  aftonifhed  at  their  greatnefs,  and 
feel  yourfelf  incapable  of  comprehending  that  immenfiry 
which  lies  beyond  thofe  vHit  fpaces  which  furround  us  — 
If  you  caft  your  eyes  on  the  earth,  you  meet  with  as 
many  myrteries  of  nature,  as  there  are  animals,  plants, 
and  creatures  inanimate.  You  meet  Vvith  infuperablc 
difficulties  in  explaining,  the  fenfation  of  one,  the 
vegetation  of  another,  and  the  motion  of  a  third. — If 
you  confider  material  nature  in  its  wide  extremes,  cf 
iramenfe  greatnefs  and  invifible  minutenefs,  you  are 
(truck  with  amazement  and  imagination  is  nonplufTed. — 
If,  to  the  confideration  of  bodies,  you  take  in  that  of 
their  duration,  time  will  ffiew  you  incomprehenfible 
wonders  ;  both  in  the  fucceffion  of  ages  pa(t,  and  in 
that  which  is  future. — If  you  turn  your  thoughts  to 
fpiritual  eflences,  every  thing  furpafles  your  compre- 
henfion.  You  cannot  comprehend,  either  their  manner 
of  exiding,  or  their  manner  of  ading.  Even  the 
human  foul  is  fo  great  a  paradox  to  itfclf,  that  it  long 
iince  defpaired,  not  only  of  comprehending,  but  of" 
knowing  itfelf. 


5r.cT.  VI.  ?,c4  c:iAi'.  vn. 

And  if  fo,  is  there  any  reafjn  to  afTcrt,  as  orr 
t-dverfaTJes  do,  that  there  are  no  niyjleries  in  religion  ? 
Or,  have  they  fufficient  ground  to  rt-fufe  their  iifLnt  to 
the  do<51ripe  of  our  Lord's  eternal  Divinity,  fo  clearly 
revealed  in  the  Bible,  becaufe  it  is  attended  with  fuch 
diîf.culties  as  are  infuperable  to  the  powers  of  reafon  ? 
Is  it  any  wonder  if  the  difHculries  with  which  we  meet 
in  the  ChrifHan  religion,  and  efpecially  thofe  that  renard 
the  Deity  of  Chrilt  and  the  do(5trine  of  the  Trinity, 
r-ould  be  found  greater,  much  greater,  than  thofe  which 
r.rtend  a  philofophical  inquiry  irto  the  fjflem  of  nature? 
T:  would,  indeed,  be  a  wonder  if  it  were  not  fo  ; 
becaufe  the  confHtution  and  capacities  of  cur  minds  bear 
ron:e  proportion  to  natural  objeds,  which  are  created 
and  finite;  and  are  much  better  qualified  to  inquire 
into  their  caufes  and  properties,  their  conne(5lions  and 
lifes,  than  into  thofe  of  religion,  which  are  of  a  fpiritual 
kind,  and  particularly  what  relates  to  the  infinité 
GoDHFAD  — Befides,  the  blefTed  God  has  not  prepaied 
our  minds,  in  the  Volume  of  Revelation,  for  meeting 
with  myfteries  in  the  frame  cf  nature,  as  be  has  in  the 
objeds  of  religion.  He  has  told  us  that  the  myfterj^ 
of  godlinefs  is  great,  and  that  the  things  of  the 
r:nfpei  are  accounted  foolishness  by  the  fons  of 
icience. 

*  But  reafon,  they  will  fay,  reafon  isthe^principal  light, 

*  and,  in  fome  refpeds,  the  principal  revelation,  by  which 

*  God  makes  hinifeif  known  toman.      By  reafon  we  arc 

*  led  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  by  that  noble  faculty  we 

*  are  delivered  from  the  blindnefs  of  univerfal  fcepticifm.* 
= — Reafon,  as  before  obferved,  prepares  the  way  to  faith, 
by  leading  us  to  receive  the  Scripture  as  a  Divine 
Revelation  ;  but  when  flie  has  put  the  Sacred  Volume 
into  our  hands,  and  has  found  the  natural  import  of  its 
language,  flie  either  is,  or  ought  to  be  (ilent.  She  has 
po  right  to  dem;  n  I,  How  cm  thefe  things  be  ' — no  right 
to  didate  «uvW  the  Almighty  fhould  reveal,  or  hoiv  he 
fbould  fpeak.     Nay,  there  is  nothing  more  reafonabic, 


SLCT.   VI.  305  CHAP.   VIT> 

than  to  hearken  to  tlie  voice  of  unerring  Wifdom  and 
Infinite  Authority,  with  an  implicit  fubmifilon  and  an 
unfufpedlng  rehance. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  knowledge  ;  one  ofcuriofity, 
the  other  of  praflice:  and  this  di(tin<5tion  takes  place  in 
all  arts  and  fciences.  Thus,  for  inftance,  in  the  art  of 
navigation  we  muft  know,  what  a  fhip  is  ;  which  fcas  are 
fafe,  and  which  dangerous  ;  at  what  time  fuch  a  fea  is 
navigable,  and  when  it  is  not  fo.  This  is  efiential  tu 
the  end  of  navigation  ;  and  this  I  call,  a  knowledge  of 
fra^iee. — But  it  may  be  intjuired.  Why  the  fea  is  fait  ? 
What  is  the  reafon  that  fuch  a  fea  has  its  flux  and  reflux 
more  than  another?  And  why  fuch  particular  winds 
prevail  more  in  this  climate  than  they  do  in  that  ?  This 
I  call,  a  knowledge  of  curiofity:  and  it  would  be  very 
abfurd  to  fail  of  reducing  the  other  to  pradiice,  becaufe 
thefe  queftions  contain  fuch  difliculiies  as  are  unanfwer- 
able. — Again  :  I  refolve  to  eat  my  common  food,  and, 
fometimes,  when  I  have  no  appetite  ;  becaufe  I  know 
that  without  food  my  ilrength  and  life  mufl  fail.  But 
were  I  to  defer  taking  the  necefl^ary  refrefiiment,  till  I 
knew  how  the  vaiious  tranfmutations  are  performed  ; 
or  till  I  was  able  to  comprehend,  how  the  food  is  turned 
into  chyle  ;  the  chyle  into  blood  ;  and  the  blood  into 
fiefh  ;  all  the  world  would  laugh  at  my  folly  :  while  I 
fliould  Lifer  the  pains  cf  hunger,  perhaps,  the  agonies  of 
death,  notwithftanding  any  pretended  importance  of 
fuch  inquiries. 

In  the  affairs  of  morality  and  divinity,  there  are  alfo 
two  kinds  of  knov/ledge  ;  the  one  of  praâice,  the  other 
of  curiofity.  To  ^luorjk'p  Jcfus  Chrill,  1  muft  know 
that  he  is  God.  To  put  my  truji  in  him,  I  mufl  look 
upon  him  as  God  ;  becaufe  it  is  written,  "  Curfed  be 
*'  the  man  that  trufleth  in  man,  and  maketh  flefh  his 
**  arm,  and  whofe  heart  denarteth  from  JtiiovAH." 
But  it  is  not  necciTary  that  I  fliould  knov/  the  modusy  and 
the  adorable  fecrets,  of  the  hypodatical  union.  As  to 
what  is^raaicalf  it  is  this  :  To  knov/  that  Chrid  is  the 
A  a  ^ 


f^ECT.  VI.  -ÎOÔ  CHAP.   VII. 


,J 


Son  of  God,  wliom  all  rational  creatures  are  bound  to 
love,  obe}'^,  and  adore — 'I'hat  He  created  the  heavens 
and  the  eanh,  and  by  Him  all  things  conflit — And  that 
tie  is  over  all,  God  blefled  for  ever.  But  fpeculative 
and  metaphylical  inquiries  into  thefe  things,  belong  to  a 
knowledge  of  cf/ri^/?/;^;  and  are  no  other  than  bold  and 
j^refumptuous  endeavours,  to  penetrate  the  unfearchables 
<>i  the  Divine  Eflence  and  the  Divine  Perfonalities. 

God's  defgn,  In  that  Revelation  which  he  has  given, 
i<to  make  known  realities  and  fcMs^  not  the  manner  of 
them.  So,  in  the  works  of  creation,,  he  difcovers 
himfelfasan  almighty  Being,  whofe  power  produced  all, 
things  ;  but  he  does  not  anfwer  a  multitude  of  curious 
<]ue(tions,  devifed  by  men  of  a  fpeculative  turn  relating 
to  the  manner  in  which  Divine  power  produced  the 
iniverfe,  and  operates  in  the  confervation  of  all  things  — 
In  the  conftitution  of  the  world  and  the  conduft  of 
Providence,  God  gives  us  fuch  a  difpiay  of  hisperfedtions, 
as  challenges  our  reverence  and  affeclion,  our  obedience 
and  adoration  :  yet  multitudes  of  infuperable  difhcultits 
attend  the  divine  Adtniniilration,  from  our  not  being 
able  to  comprehervd  ho^tjo  the  holincfs,  and  wifdom,  and 
power  of  God  concur  in  the  permiflion  of  the  moft 
vicked  aidions,  and  in  over-ruling  them  fo  as  to  promote 
fome  valuable  end. 

And  thus  it  is  in  the  Divine  word,  which  contains,, 
as  a  doélrine,  and  reveals,  as  a  fa(ft,  the  incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God.  Thefe  Divine  declarations,  *'  The 
«'  Word  was  made  fiefli — God  was  manifefi  in  the  flefli" 
— are  plain  and  full  to  the  point;  efpecially,  if  confidered 
in  connexion  with  other  infallible  teftimonies.  But 
they  do  not,  nor  does  the  Bible  at  large,  enable  us  to 
anfwer  a  number  of  difficult  cjueftions,  which  might  be 
Ifarted  about  the  modus  of  that  wonderful  fadl.  Nor, 
indeed,  was  this  either  neceffary,  or  praticable.  It  was 
not  praticable.  For,  as  the  minds  of  fpeculative  men 
kre  ever  teeming  with  unprofitable  queltions  and  per- 
|>lexin3  doubts,  the  volume  of  Scripture  muft  hav€  been 


SECT.  VI.  307  CHAP.   VIU 

of  an  immenfe  bulk,  to  have  provided  folutions  for  them 
all.  It  was  not  necejfary.  For  to  know  the  modus  of 
the  grand  reality  would,  perhaps,  only  indulge  our 
curioTity  and  flatter  oar  j)ride  ;  vhcreas  our  acquaintance 
v/ith  the  fad^  ferves  for  pra<51ice  ;  and  it  is  practice,  not 
the  gratification  of  our  curiofity,  at  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  aims. -Happy  would  it  he,  if  all  teachers  of  divinitv 
were  careful  to  diltinguilli  between  thof^;  things  which  are 
pradical  and  necefiary,  and  thofe  which  are  curious  and 
merely  fpeculative.  They  would  be  furprifed  to  find,  by 
this  diflindion,  that  a  great  part  of  mankind  fpend  their 
time  in  fceking  a  kind  of  knowledge,  which  is  of  little 
or  no  ufe — A  kind  of  knowledge,  which  would  neither 
meliorate  their  tercperc,  nor  amend  their  conduâ  ; 
neither  increafe  their  devotion  to  God,  nor  promote 
benevolence  to  man.  They  would  fee,  that  philofophica! 
divines  lofe  their  way,  the  v^ry  fir(l  flep  they  tske,  in 
fearching  after  the  truths  of  falvation  ;  b^caufe  they 
fj  end  their  time  and  pains,  in  attempting  to  grafp 
incomprehenfibles,  iiiftcad  of  inHlling  upon  what  is 
pUinly  revealed. 

As  they  who  lived  under  the  legal  oeconomy  had,  in 
comparifon  with  us,  but  faint  reprefcntations  oï  ths 
reality  of  the  incarnation  ;  though  agreeable  to  the  plan 
of  Divine  wifdom,  refpeding  the  P.ate  of  the  church  at 
that  time,  and  had  regard  to  a  clearer  manifcRaiion  of 
that  capital  truth  under  tlie  gofpel-difpenfation  ;  how  do 
v/e  know  but  our  prefcnt  ignorance  of  the  manner  of  that 
myfterious  facfl,  may  have  a  relation  to  the  future  life  } 
For  the  knowledge  of  the  people  of  God  does  not  only 
vary,  according  to  the  diifcrence  of  the  Divine  œcofjo- 
mics,  under  which  they  live  ;  but  according  to  the 
different  7?^î/r  in  which  they  are.  A  child,  forinftance, 
has  no  reafon  to  be  offv^nded,  or  grieved,  becaufe  he 
cannot  comprehend  how  the  empires  of  this  world  are 
governed  ;  any  more  than  the  ancient  Ifraelites  had, 
becaufe  they  were  not  favoured  with  all  the  light  and 
^raccof  ih^  Me/Hah^s  kingdom.    The  condition  of  men,. 


SECT.  VI.  308  CHAP.  vn. 

xvhile  on  earth,  like  that  of  a  child  in  the  fimile,  does 
not  permit  them  to  penetrate  the  myfteries  of  religion  to 
that  degree,  of  which  the  human  mind  fhall  be  capable 
in  a  future  ftate  ;  though  even  then  it  will  be  impoflible  to 
**  ftnd  out  the  Almighty  to  perfection." 

Our  ideas  proceed  from  three  fources,  the  fenfes, 
reafon,  and  faith  ;  and  thefe  are  mutually  dependent, 
though  their  ufes  and  jurifdiiflion  are  different.  The 
fenfes  furnifh  reafon  with  her  materials,  and  reafon 
furniflies  faith  with  her  principles.  The  fenfes  never 
rife  fo  high  as  reafon,  nor  is  it  proper  that  reafon  fliould 
rife  fo  high  as  faith.  Reafon  judges  of  that  which  the 
fenfes  cannot  perceive.  -She  tells  us,  for  example,  that 
there  is  matter  between  the  earth  and  the  heavens  ; 
though  this  matter  does  not  appear.  And  fo  it  is  the 
province  and  prerogative  of  divine  faith,  to  judge  of 
thofe  things  which  furpafs  the  powers  of  reafon.  God 
•afferts  and  faith  teaches,  tliat  "  the  Word  was  made 
*'  flefh  ;"  though  reafon,  of  herfelf,  perceives  nothing 
of  it  ;  nay,  though  flie  ftrongly  objed  againd  it.  And 
why  ?  Becaufe  faith  is  fuperior  to  reafon,  as  reafon  is 
faperior  to  the  fenfes.  As,  therefore,  it  would  be  vain 
and  abfjrd,  for  a  man  to  endeavour  to  difcover  that  by 
the  fenfes,  v/hich  reafon  cannot  develope  ;  fo  it  is 
prepoderous  and  arrogant  for  reafon  to  determine  upon 
thofe  myfterious  realities,  which  lie  within  the  province 
of  faith — even  of  that  faith,  which  entirely  depends  on 
the  Divine  teflimony,  and  is  altogether  diredted  by  it. 
For  as  the  errors  of  the  fenfes,  which  are  the  firft  means 
of  knowledge,  are  correded  by  reafon  ;  fo  the  mifiakes 
cf  reafon  fliould  be  rectified  by  faith.  Let  reafon,  then, 
lead  me  to  faith,  as  my  fenfes  lead  me  to  reafon  ;  but  let 
reafon  be  filent  when  faith  fpeaks,  as  my  fenfes  are 
filent  when  reafon  didates.  For,  certainlj'-,  if  reafon 
convince  me  of  many  truths,  contrary  to  what  my  fenfes 
fuggeft;  if  it  xonvince  me,  for  inftance,  that  the  fan  is 
bigger  than  the  earth,  though  my  eyes  teach  me  the 
contrary  ;    faith  may  teach  us  a  variety  of  importani 


CECT.   Vï.  309  CHAP.   VIU 

things,  which  rcàfon  could  never  diCcover,  and  which, 
when  difcovered,  llie  cannot  comprehend. 

Here,   perhaps,    it   may  be  faid,    *  As   the  general 

*  agreement  of  men,  in  alTenting  to  a  propofition,  is  a 
'  (trong   prefumptive  proof  of  its  truth  ;  fo  a  general 

*  reluctance  to  receive  it,  is  an  equaf  evidence  of  its 

*  fdh'ehood.      The  do<5irine  of  the   incarnation,   confe- 

*  CJuently,  having  fomethiog  in  it  repugnant  to  the  minds 

*  of  men  in  general,  ought  to  be  1  ejected  as  void  of 
'  truth  * — But  there  is  a  vAiï  difference  between  rejei^ing 
a  principle,  as  contradiflory  to  fome  knozcn,  elldllifosd 
truth  ;     and   finding    it  natnraHy  incomprehsnfihh.       i'hc 

former  is  a  character  of  its  falfehood  ;  the  hitler  of  its 
fublimity— There  are  fome  unirerfal  repugnancies  of 
the  fenfes,  of  the  imagination,  and  of  the  mind  itfelf, 
which  do  not  concUide  againd  the  reality  of  their  ohjevfls. 
For  example  :  The /en/es  ttll  thofe  that  view,  from  the 
g'"ound,  an  Egyptian  pyramid,  that  the  fummit  of  it  is 
almodlike  the  fpire  of  a  fleej^le;  and  tiiough  all  mankind 
t/ere  to  fee  it.  iri  that  fituation,  tlisy  would  univerf^ily 
T«gree  that  it  terminates  in  a  point.  But  reafon,  judging 
of  the  diltance  and  proportion  of  the  obje6l,  as  well  aJ 
being  afTified  by  experiment,  correds  the  error;  and, 
rotv.'i'fhftanding  this  univerfal  language  of  the  fenfes, 
convinces  you,  that  the  top  of  the  pyramid  is  a  platform 
cipable  of  holding  fifty  men. — Human  ima^hiatton  has 
an  averfion,  univerfally,  to  reprefent  to  itf';lf  men,  who, 
wi-hout  filling,  have  their  feet  diametrically  oppofite  to 
ours.  Yet  reafon  correds  this  error,  and  puts  it  beyond 
a  doubt,  that  there  are  antipodes — The  muifls  of  all 
riiankind  are  naturally  fhocked,  at  which  philofophers 
and  geometricians  afTert,  concerning  the  infinite  divifi. 
bility  of  matter  :  and  yet,  on  inquiry,  we  cannot  but 
aiTent  to  the  truth  of  the  ftran^e  affertion,  notwithfland- 
ing  this  univerfal  repugnancy. — May  we  not,  then,  con- 
clude, thatthough  all  men  found  fomethingoffenfivc  to  them. 
in  this  propofiiion,  **  The  Word  was  made  flcfh  ;"   or, 

*  Cod  was  mads  man  ;*  yet  faith  would  have  a  right  to, 


SECT.  Vi.  310  CHAP.   VII. 

corretfl  this  univerfal  repugnancy,  as  reafon  does  that  of 
the  fenfes  and  imagination  ? 

Many  learned  and  pious  men  have  laboured  hard  to 
find  out  pertinent  fimilitudes,  by  which  to  illultrate  a 
fubjeil  which  is  unfearchably  deep  and  beyond  all 
comparifon.  Such  attempts,  however  well-intended, 
cannot  fail  of  proving  abortive,  and  are  orten  injurious 
to  the  ciufe  they  were  defigned  to  ferve. —  Thefe  com- 
parifons  are  not  adapted  to  anfwer  the  end,  as  they 
fpeak  only  to  our  imagination.  Now  it  is  not  the 
itnaginalion,  but  reafon  that  muft  be  fatlsfied.  For  as 
thofe  emblems,  under  which  I  may  reprefent  to  myfelf 
the  Divine  Being,  have  but  little  evidence  to  convince 
me  of  his  exiftcnce  ;  fo  the  images,  by  which  the 
myftery  before  us  may  be  reprefented,  have  but  little 
force  to  perfuade  mc  of  its  truth. — Befides,  thefe 
comparifons  give  occafion  to  our  opponents,  to  examine 
and  expofe  the  difparities  which  attend  them  ;  which 
muft  necefîarily  be  both  numerous  and  (Iriking,  by  reafon 
of  the  immenfe  difproportion  which  there  is  between 
fimilitudes  taken  from  finite  creatures,  and  the  infi- 
nite Creator.  On  thefe  difparities  the  enemies  of  the 
truth  raife  imaginary  triumphs  ;  and  improve  them  1> 
blind  the  fimple  and  feduce  the  ignorant,  who  do  not 
well  underftand  the  defign  of  fuch  comparifons  ;  which 
was,  not  the  convinlon  of  the  mind,  but  the  ajfifiance  of 
the  imagination. — Another  reafon  why  thefe  comparifons 
appear  to  us  injurious  to  the  caufe  of  truth,  is,  their 
being  intended  to  lefTen  the  dililculties  attending  the 
grand  raydery,  by  difcovering  the  manner  of  it,  which 
God  has  not  revealed.  This,  fo  far  as  it  is  fuppofed  to 
operate,  fuperfedes  the  neceffity  of  an  unrefervcd  confi- 
dence in  the  divine  teilimony,  concerning  this  profoundly 
myfterious  fubjeâ:  ;  and,  in  a  meafure,  the  end  of 
Revelation  itfelf:  which  is  calculated  to  humble  us,  by 
prefenting  us  with  objeds  which  we  cannot  comprehend, 
as  well  as  to  enlighten  us  iii  fuch  things  as  are  necefUry. 
to  be  known. 


â£CT.  VI.  311  CHAP.  vir. 

The  only  ufe  T  would  make  of  fuch  comparifons,  is» 
to  alfcoTer  the  difFerence  between  intuitive  and  abllracfted 
knowledge.  I  call  that  iniuiihry  which  arifes  from  fight 
and  experience  ;  and  ^\\2i\,  ahJlraSedy  which  reiults  from 
reafoning  and  teflinionj'.  For  inftancc  :  A  man,  blind 
from  his  birth,  has  only  an  abllrafied  knowledge  of  many 
agreeable  and  wonderful  objefïs  around  him,  of  which 
perfons  in  common  have  an  intuitive  knowledge.  Now, 
fuppofing  you  fpeak  to  fuch  an  one  about  light  and  colours  ; 
about  the  brightnefs  of  the  fun,  in  his  meridian  glory,  or 
concerning  the  vegetable  beauties  of  fpring  ;  his  ideas  ot 
vhat  you  mean  are  all  confufed.  Nay,  if  you  enter  into 
particulars  with  him,  on  fubjcdts  of  this  kind,  he  will 
confider  many  things  you  fay,  as  quite  inconfillent  one 
with  another.  He  will  not  know  how,  and  he  will 
think  it  impoflible  for  any  other  perfon,  to  reconcile  fo 
many  apparent  contradicflions.  Whereas  if  you  mention 
the  fevetal  particulars  to  one  who  enjoys  the  bleflîng  of 
fight,  and,  efpecially,  if  he  hare  been  Itudious  of  nature  ; 
he  underltands  what  you  fay,  and  has  not  the  lead  doubt 
in  the  cafe.  The  grand  reafon  of  this  difference  is, 
thofe  things  which  are  incomprehenfible,  when  they  are 
known  merely  with  an  abflraded  knowledge,  appear  in 
a  very  different  light  when  tJiey  are  known  intuitively^ 
and,  frequently,  the  difficulties  we  fuppofe  to  be  in  the 
objcSsy  are  in  our  own  minJsf  and  arife  from  our  manner 
of  knowing  them. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  difficulties  and  feeming  contra- 
didions  may  be  found  in  the  mo(i  common  objeds,  when 
they  are  known  merely  in  an  abftradted  way  ;  and  that 
the  fuppofed  inconfiltencies  vanifli.  fo  foon  as  they  come 
to  be  viewed  intuitively.  We  have,  therefore,  little 
reafon  to  be  furprifed,  if,  when  contemplating  the  my  fiery 
of  the  incarnation,  difficulties  occur  and  feeming  contra- 
diélions  appear  ;  fince  in  the  prefent  itaie,  our  knowledge 
of  it  is  purely  abllraéled 

The  two  foilowing  reflections  ffiall  conclude  this 
Treatifc.    As  there  are  difncuiiies  in  almoll  every  fubjeft 


SfECT.  VI.  31a  CHAP.  VII. 

of  inquiry,  it  is  by  a  comparative  viczv  that  wife  men 
have  always  been  determined  to  take  one  fide  of  a  c]uef- 
tion,  rather  than  the  other.  This  is  a  certain  lule  of 
good  fenfe,  and  fhould  be  followed  in  the  cafe  before  us. 
We  ought  not  to  rejeâ:  the  dodrine  of  the  incarnation 
as  enoneous,  becaufs  difficulties  attend  it;  nor  becaufc 
very  piaulible  objections  have  been  made  againfl  it.  It 
is  the  fault  of  young  pcrfons,  and  the  cha'radter  of  rafii 
and  weak  underflandings,  that  are  not  capable  of  viewing 
feveral  objeds,  and  their  relations,  at  oi-ce  ;  to  determine 
qucltions  of  importance,  on  the  appearance  of  an  infu- 
perablc  difficuhy  ;  or  tlfe  it  is  an  evidence  of  a  negligent 
and  lazy  temper,  which  will  not  permiit  them  to  examine 
things  maturely.  We  ought  here,  as  it  is  a  quedion  of 
infinite  importance,  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  falvation 
of  men  ;  to  compaie  arguments  with  arguments,  and 
difficulties  with  difficulties,  and  that  with  diligence  and 
prayer. — On  iuch  an  examination  it  will  be  found,  that 
the  molt  plaufible  arguments  of  our  adverfuries  confift, 
either  in  nietaphyHcol  fj*eculations  ;  or  in  fuch  pafTages 
of  Scripture  as  explain  themifelves,  by  cihers,  to  a  very 
different  fenfe  •  whereas  ours  are  formed  on  fuch  Divine 
declarations  as  are  clear  and  exprefs,  frequently  repeated 
and  clofely  connedied  ;  fo  that  either  the  obvious  and 
natural  meaning  of  the  terms  muft  utterly  be  rejeded,  and 
then  any  exprefiions  will  ferve  any  purpoie  ;  or  our  inter- 
pretation muli  be  received.  And  as  to  the  d'i^iculties  it 
w;ill  appear,  that:  the  moli  formidable  of  thofe  v^hich  are 
ftarted  by  our  opponents,  are  taken,  either  from  their 
being  incapable  of  comprehending  the  myllery  ;  or  from 
the  gioflcs  of  fume  wiiimfical  fchoolmen,  v.'hich  we  freely 
give  up  and  heartily  dcfpife,  as  much  as  our  opi  ofers 
themfeives.  But  the  difficulties  which  we  improve  againft 
them,  arife  from  a  coullderation  of  iuch  things  as  are 
abfolutely  effentlal  to  the  Scriptures  ;  which  are,  truth, 
perfp'cuity^  and  p'leiy  Fur  without  thefe  the  Bible  is 
uhworihy  of  God  ;  deiHtute  ot  thefe,  whoever  attributes 
it' to  Him,  reproaches  his  Maker.     Uiffi.cuhies  multiply 


S3:CT.  VI.  313  GITA?.  Tir. 

and  load  ihcîr  hypothefîs,  by  conHJerin^,  tl^e  :^vrAo'^j 
of  Jaith — tliat  by  wiiich  God'^Iove  to  mankind  is  moil 
highly  recommended — that  on  which  are  founded  the 
reality  of  ihe  atonement  by  Jcfus  Ghrifl,  and  all  the 
merit  of  his  death — and,  above  all,  that  which  ths 
Epoilles,  who  were  inf^^hed  v.r.d  commiiTioned  to  reveal 
and  pubiifîi  the  myfleries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
have  rrroft  faid,  repeated,  urged  ;  and  upon  which  they 
have  grounded  the  prr.(flice  of  worfiiinping  Jefus  Chrift, 
the  Son  of  God,  as  Over  all,  God  blessed  for 
EVER.  So  that  ihc  diuiculiics  which  we  object,  are 
fuch  as  afki^l  the  IjiBLTi,  as  a  Divine  Revelation  ; 
and  Christianity,  a^  a  Divine  Religion. 

Again  :  Though  the  Sociohn  interpretatio'n  of  con- 
troverted texts,  is,  in  many  infîances,  the  mod  probable 
th.at  can  be  given,  in  oppcfition  to  the  arguments  v/c 
form  upon  them,  in  defence  of  our  Lord's  Divinity;  yet 
they  appear  unnatural,  far-fetciied,  and  invented  merely 
10  ferve  an  hypotheiis.  So  that,  as  we  are  not  required 
to  interpret  the  oracles  of  God  by  a  Spirit  of  divination, 
nor  to  decypher  unfearchable  riddles  ;  we  cannot  br 
under  any  obngation  to  knov/,  rhuch  lefs  to  approve,  fuch 
refined  fubtikies  as  are  calculated  to  lov/er,  to  obfcure, 
to  deftroy,  thofe  fablime  ideas  which  the  Scriptures  give 
'iS,  of  the  eflcnticd  and  mediatorial  glories  of  Jefiis  Chriil. 

The  former  of  thffe  reilefVions  proves  the  lr:i.'/j  of  our 
principles;  the  lauer  diev/s  ù\2  faj'ely  of  them.  The  one 
kr.isfies  our  fnhuis,  t}\2'o&.cr  our  con/dences;  and  both 
togedier  give  a  ]ui\  idea  of  the  dcfjfn  of  this  Treatile, 
which  I  nov/  dedicate  to  the  eternal  honour  of  my  D;  vim  e 
Redeemer,  ttie  adorable  Immanuel. — ♦  Forgive, 

*  O  GOD,  the  trnperfeclions  of  the  work,  and  the  fms 

*  of  the  author  !   Eilablifh  and  fpread  the  infallible  truths 

*  of  thy  gofpcl  ;  that  as  thou  hafl  be.=  n  pîeafed  to  manifcfl 

*  ihyfdf  in  the  fiein,  all  ilelh  may  behold  thy  ^lory  and 

*  Gjw  at  thv  fooiilool  !     Amen.' 


A  TABLE  OF- THE  TEXTS, 

Move  cr  lejs  Tllof.rated  in  this  U'orl. 


GENESIS. 

JEREMIAH, 

Chap 

\'crfe 

Page 

CIup 

.  Verfe 

Page 

%z 

-     9,  10,  II     - 

95.  6 

i5 

-21 

219 

17 

-     5 

305 

EXODUS. 

17 

-     9>  10 

61 

3 

-2,3,4 

21'') 

MICAH, 

3 

-15           ,         . 

70 

4 

-  n 

219 

4 

•  13 

20J 

20^ 

-     3     -      5^.- 53 

Si,  a 

ZECHARIAH. 

7  KIXCS, 

6 

-5 

205 

8 

-  3? 

61 

MAriHEVV. 

PSALMS, 

4 

-  10 

85.  271 

6. 'J 

'  17.  18, 

28 

7 

-  i5 

23 

82 

-     6,  7, 

56 

2C7 

8 

-     3 

34» 

ç6 

-     5-13 

18 

-  20 

-  32 

227 

78 

97 
97 

-  1—5 
-6,7.9        - 

-  23,  6,  7    -    197 

205 

206 

— :oo 

28 
28 

-  19 

-  :o 

187 
227 

^10 

1        -          - 

1/0 

Z?7A'^. 

ISAIAH. 

I 

-  16,17 

-  IS 

a34 

287—298 

2 

-  11 

32.  47 

I 

-  7^       - 

195,   <5,  7 

6 

'     3 

cor 

24 

-  ir 

119,  20 

35 

-     4 

*     3           -         I 

..28 
'3.  iy5 

70.Y//. 

4 -J 

-     9 

'-:8 

I 

-     1,2,3     - 

153— Ï7  2 

40 

-  lo       -           54 

72.  3 

1 

-  i3 

113 

A  "-< 

-     8         -           i 

5.  ^19 

I 

-  .9 

ÎU 

43 

-  11 

65 

3 

-  31              1 

a8,  9.  135 

44 

-    6 

4>  67 

5 

-  17,18 

231,  a 

45 

-5.^,7 

4? 

6 

-     58 

135 

45 

.  21,  2          -      6 

5,  6,  7 

6 

-  62           127.  13a.  138 

'^  j 

*  -3 

-9 

8 

-  58         - 

144—147 

60 

-     1 

39 

lo 

-   3^ 

aa;,  30 

10 

-  35,  6 

293 

JEREMIAH. 

12 

-  37—41  20c 

-204.  412, 

10 

-  II 

53.  82 

14 

I 

269 

14 

-  22 

82 

14 

•     9 

186,  7 

A  TABLE  OF  T«E  TEXTS, 


JOHN, 


PHILÎPPIAKS. 


14 

-  10 

199 

2 

-     6     71—76.  173.  2;o 

14 

-  a3 

33.  30^ 

2 

-     6,  7,  8         147— i3 

15 

-     4 

a6i 

16 

-12 

254 

COLOSSIANS. 

16 

17 

-  i8 

-  3 

Ï-7 

256— 2;  6 

I 

-  16               59.  22'),  7 

17 

-     5 

185 

/  TIMOTHY. 

^9 

-     7 

231 

20 

-  28 

25 
60,  1 

3 

-1')         -         104 — 109 

ai 

-  17 

6 

-  ij,  i6       26a,  3.  2,é 

ACTS, 

TITUS, 

2 

-  16.  17 

211 

- 

-  13             -             234 

10 

-  a6 

83.4 
47-  23i 

ïi 

-  22 

H  EBP  EM'S. 

16 

-  31 

28Z 

1 

-4.5.6         -         224 

20 

-  28 

228 

I 
I 

6  -  165.  204 — 209 
-      7.  8               -           jgy 

ROMANS 

. 

I 

-  »"                -                59 

1 
I 

-3         -       18 
-  4 

4,5. 292 

^95 

I 

-  10,  11,  12  -  19; — 200 

-  5              -          165.  6 

8 

-  3i 

9'-  93.4 

5 

-    II                 -                 2/4 

9 

5 

^^35'  292 

7 

-  a^,  27        -         2Si 

u 

-  11 

29 

^.^-'ifr^. 

/ 

COniNTHI. 

^Yo\ 

1 

-  17       -      1:7-  -78 

1 

-13 

125 

no.  ir 

I 

-    21 

/  PETE  p. 

I 

-  -3 

113 

I 

-  11              -             I4i 

2 

2  "O,  60 

2, 

-   11 

280 

/  yoHx. 

4 

-   15 

lC^,  2 

3 

-   I          -        113 

8 

-   4.  5.  6          : 

77-:87 

5 

-  'U      -      234. 267 

15 

-  24 

300 

Ï5 

-  47  1 2:,  1 35>''= 

.8.140,1 

PEE  EL  ATI  ox. 

-  23          -           (i--6j 

EPHESIAIJ 

■S". 

13 

-        8              -              144:5-^^ 

1 

-   10 

1-6,  7 

V 

-   10                -                84 

4 

.     6 

778 

-  13       -       C:~-:i 

4 

-    e,  9 

ao,  9 

irralum,  Prge  8j,  line  4  from  th 

Î  bottom,  for.-,  .-./v.'.'  r .- . 

Dd 

2 

SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 


Rev.  JAMES  ACERCROMBÎE,  Miniflcr 
of  the  Epfcopal  Ciuuch,  Philadelphia 
Mr.    Ifaac  Abraham,  Delaware  County 

John  Ackermnn,  Burlington,  New-Jcrfcy 

Ifaac  Adams,  Heidelberg, 
Thomas  Adams,  Efq.  Judge  of  the  Court  of  C.  Pieas 

Burlington,  New-Jeifey 
Mr.   Ifaac  Agins,  Uwchian,  Pennfylvania 

Abraham  Albertfon,  Piitsgrovc,  New-Jerfcy 

George  Allen,  Mount- Holly,  Ne.v-Jerfey 

Robert  Anderfon,  jun.  Student  at  Rhode  Iflanil 
College 
Rev.  EiiHia  Andrews,  Templeton,  Maflachufetts 

Chriftopher  Appleton,  Philadelphia 

William  Aflimead,  do. 

Fortune  A  tus,  do. 

His  Excellency  Joseph  Bloomfield,  Efq.  GoTCrnor 

of  the  State  of  New-Jerfey 
Mr.  George  A.  Baker,  jun.  Philadelphia 

Henry  Baker,  jun.  do. 

John  L.  Baker,  do. 

Rev.  Lutlicr  Baker,  Warren,  Rhode  Ifland 
Aaron  Ball,  Efq.  Long  Hill,  Morris  County,  N.  Jerfcy 
r^Ir.   Jofcph  Barber,   Burlington,  do. 

John  M.  Barber,     do.  do. 

William  Barns,  Philadelphia 
Mrs.  I'lartha  Barnett,  do. 

Capt.  Stephen  Beafly,  do.  2  copies 

Rev.  James  E.  Beach,  Bridgport,  Connedicut 
Mrs.  Margaret  Beaks,  Philadelphia 
William  Benedia,  Efq.  Bridgeport,  Conneaicut 
Mr.  Nathaniel  Billings,  Scotfplains,  New-Jerfey 

Thomas  Billings,  Philadelphia 

John  Black,  Tutor  in  the  Univerfity  of  Pennfylr. 


SU3SCRIB^]:S  NAMES'. 


Mr»  Benjamin  Blackford,  Burlington,  New-Jcifcy 

Jlev.  Samuel  Blatchford,  Bridgeport,  ConntvTticut  ; 

Mr.  Jolm  Bleyler,  Philadelphia 

Rev.  John  Boggs,  Welch-Tradl,  6  copies  i 

Mr,  William  Bofv/eil,  Philadelphia  I 

Noah  Bo  wen,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey  ' 

Obed  Bowen,  do.  ' 

Rev.  Beverly  Booth,   Surry  Countv,  Virginia,  2  copies 
Anthony  Tate  BoyJ,  M.  D.  Philadelphia  '  ' 

Mr.  Jacob  Boyer,  do. 

Lucius  Bollcs,  Rhode  IHand  College  ; 

Jnnies  Braden,  Frederick  Countv,  ^vlaryland  J 

Rev.  Jofhua  Bradley,   A.  B.  Aflidant  Mini'ftcr  of  the 

fécond  Baptift  Church,  Newport,  11.  Ifland,  9  copies  j 

Rev.  John  Brice,  "Warnington,  Pennfylvania  V; 

Mr.    Robert  Brov;n,  Greenfburg  j 

Mrs.  Catherine  Burkcloe,      do.  : 

Elizabeth  Button,  Philadelphia  1 

Rev.  Abfaloni  Butler,  Baltimore  County 
Mrs.  Mary  Burton,  Pljiladelphia 

Mr.  Benjamin  White  Call,  Phyfician,  Newport.  R.  IÙ. 

Robert  Campbell,  New  Jerfey 

Ifaac  Carr,  Philadelphia 
Mrs.  Margaret  Carty,  Burlington,  Nevz-Jerfey 
Rev.  Buckley  Carll,  Piitsgrove,  do. 

Mr,  John  Carll,  do. 

Obadiah,  Carutliers,  Pittsgrcve,  do. 

Donald  Catnach,  Philadelphia 

James  Center,  Nevvport,  Rhode  liland 

John  Chalk,  Circulating  Library,  Philadelphia 

John  Chapman,  do. 

Jofeph  Cheney,  Rhode  Ifland  College 

William  Cheavens,  Philadelphia 

Podhumous  Claggett,  Wafhington  County 

John  Clane,  Deerfieid,  New-Jerfcy 

Francis  Clark,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Mrs.  Anna  Clark,  Philadelphia 
James  Clark;  Efc^.  Fairfield,  New-Jerfey 

D  d3 


9U£  scum  ERS  NAMES. 

Mr.  Nathaa  CoRibes,  Merchant,  Lamberion,  N.  J. 

George  Coome?,  Pitts^rove,  do. 

Rev.  Henry  Cook,  A.  M.  Metuclnn,  do. 

Mr.  Dennis  Coles,  Sr.r«i rplali)'^,  do. 

John  Collard,  Fiiilaclelpi/ia 
Eliza  Cornog,  Philadelphia 
Mr.  Jonathan  Cornvvell,  Decificld,  Ncw-Jerfejr 

Efek  Cox,  Philadelphia 
William  Coxe,  Efq.  Burlington,  New-Jcrfey 
Charles  Crawford,  Efq.    Piiiladclphia 
Mr.  John  Crifman,  Vincent 

Cumpflon,  ?»îerchant,  Philadelphia 

Mr.    Gardner  Daggett,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifiand,  Col. 

Elkanak  K,  Dare,  Bridgetown,  New-Jerfey 
Ezra  Darby,  Efq.    Scotfplains,  do. 

I\ir,  Mark  Darrak,  at  Uwchlan,  Pennfylvania 

John  Davenport,  Philadelphia 
Rev.  John  Davenport,  Deer  field,  New-Jerfey 
Ann  Davis,   Philadelphia, 
Mrs.  Hannah  Davis,  New-Jerfey 
Catharine  Davis,     do. 
Mr.  Thomas  Davis,  Front  flrect,  Philadelphia, 

Rees  Davis,  Upper-Merriam,  Pennfylvania 

Thomas  Davis,  Vincent 

Artemas  Dean,  Student  at   Rhode  Ifland  College 
Col.  William  De  Hart,  Morrifto.vn,  New-Jerfey 
Mr.   Francis  Deluce,   Baltimore 

Lewis  Dewecs,  Philadelphia 

Jofeph  Dolby,  do. 

Dinah  Dorfey,  Anne  Arundcll  County,  Maryland 
Alexander  Dunn,  Efq.  Pifcatawa,  New-Jerfey 

Mr.  Lemuel  Edwards,  New-Jerfey 

Mifs.  Sukey  Ellery,  Newport,  Rhode  Ifland 

Pvev.  William  Filing,  Paftor  of  Trinity  Chapel,  Philada. 

Andrew  Elliot,  Fairfield,  Connedticut 
Charles  Ellis,  Efq.  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Mrs.  Elizabeth  Englifh,  Burlingtoi);  New-Jerfey 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES. 
Mr,  Ferdinand  Ellis,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifiand  College, 

John  Ellis,  Preacher  of  the  Gofpel,  Philadelphia 
Dr.   Philemon  Elmer,  Weftlield,  Ne\v-Je:ley 
Mr.  Eli  Elmer,  Bridgetown  dc. 

John  Elton,  Efq.  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Mr.   Melatiah  Everet,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifland  Col. 
Capt.  Nathaniel  Falconer,  Philadelphia 
Mr.  William  Falconer, 

Alexander  Finider,  Baltimore, 
Theodore  Fofter,  Efq.  S.  U.  S.  Rhode  Ifland 
Mr.  John  Fox,  Philadelphia 

Thomas  Foxail,  Baltimore, 
Rev.  J.  Flood,  Milford,  Delaware,  9  copies 
Mr.   Jonathan  Freeman,  Newbury,  New- York  Stale 

Benjamin  French,   Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Rev.  Richard  Furman,  Charlelton,  S.  Carolina  12  cops. 
l>îr.  Furman,  do.  do. 

\lr.   Levi  Garret,   Philadelphia 

Benjamin  Garrifon,  Deerfield,  New-Jcrfey 

Daniel  Garrifon,  do.  do. 

Davis  Garrifon,  do.  do. 

Eph.raim  Garten,  do.  do. 

Jonathan  Garten,  do.  do. 

Brice  Gafiav/ay,  Anne  Arundel  County,  Maryland 

Jofeph  Gibfoii,  Philadelphia 

Ifaac  GifFord,  Burlington,  Nev/-Jerfey 

Benjamin  Glcafon,  Student  at  R.  Ifland  College 

John  Godfrey,  do. 

Elirtia  Gordon,  Efq.  near  Euflletown 
Mr.    Simeon  Green,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifland  College 

John  Grant,  Shoemaker,  Philadelphia 

Peter  Grant,  Book-binder,  do. 

John  Grant,  do.  do. 

Rev.  Aflibel  Green,  D.  D.  do. 

The  Hon.  William  Griffith,  Efq.  Judge  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  United  States,  Burlington,  Ncw-Jerfey 
Mifs  Eliza  Griffith,  Philadelphia 
Mrs.  Sarah  Griffith,  Philadelphia 


SUSSCRIBIUS*  y  J  MES. 
Mr.  Howard  Griffith,  Montgomery  County,  Maryland 
Rev.  Peter  Groom,  Weft-Creek,  New-Jerfey 
Mr.  John  Gwaltney,  Virginia 

Mr.  David  Hall,  Philadelphia 

Martha  Hall,  do. 

•Mr.  Jacob  Han,  Pittfgrove,  New-  Jerfey 

John  Hanley,  Philadelphia 
Elizabeth  Hallach,  Baltimore 

Rev.  Andr.  Harpending,  Shaftfbury,  Vermont,  9  cops. 
Mr.  Jonathan  Harris,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 
Jofeph  Hart,  Efq.  Bucks  County,  Pennfylvania 
Capt.  Aaron  Hawley,  do. 

Mr.   Aaron  Hawley,  Connedicut 

Tifdal  Hedgcr,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifland  College 

Robert  Henderfon,  Philadelphia 
Rev.  John  Hickenan,  Culpepper  County,  Virginia 
Mr.  Benjamin  Plobart,  Rhode  liland  College 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Hockley,  Philadelphia 
Mr.  David  Holman,  Rhode  Ifland  College 
Silas  Hough,  M.  D.  Montgomery  County,  Pennfylr. 
Mr.  Bethanah  Hodgkinfon,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 

George  Smith  Houflon,  Philadelphia 

James  Houflon,  do. 

John  How,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Col.  Benjamin  Hovey,  Shenango,  New- York,  State 
Capt.  Ezra  Hubbel,  Connedticut 
Mr.   Robert  Hude,  New  Brunfwick,  New-Jerfey 

Hull,  M.  D.  Fairneld,  Connedicut 

Rev.  Afa  Hylyard,  A.  M.  Bottle-Hill,  New-Jerfey 

JefTe  Hyatt,  Frederick  County,  Maryland 

Eli  Hyatt,         do.  do. 

Mr.  William  Innes,  fen.  Philadelphia 
Maj.  Jefle  John,  Uvvxhlan,  Pennfylvania 
Mr.  James  John,  Vincent  do. 

David  John        do.  do. 

Mary  Jackware,  Philadelphia 


Rebecca  Jackway,       do. 
Mr.  Morgan  Jsckway,  ç}iO. 

David  James,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 
Rev.  I.  Janeway,  Philadelphia 
Mr.  Paul  Javett,  Student  at  Rhode  Ifland  College 

Kenneth  Jewell,  Philadelphia 
Rev.  Evan  Johns,  Conneclic.t 
Mr.  John  Johns,  Chambeifburg,  Pennfylvania 

Ifaac  Johnfon,  Philadelphia 

Ezekiel  Johnfior,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 

Henry  Jones,  Virginia 
Mifs  Hannah  Jones,  Philadelphia 
Capt.  Lloyd  Jones,  do. 

Mr.    Philip  Jones,  do. 

Robert  Jones,  do. 

Samuel  P.  L.  Jones,  Schoolmafîer,  Philadelphia 
Mifs  S u fan n ah  Jones,  Delaware 
Mr.  Thomas  Jones,  Liack-wa!nut  Bottom,  5  copies 
Mrs.  Eliza  Jofiah,  Philadelphia 
Mr,  Ifrael  Joflen,  Deerlield,  New-Jeifcy 

Samuel  Jofl.n,     do.  do. 

Jeremiah  Joflen,  do.  do. 

Ifaac  Jyflup,  New-Jerfey 

Mrs.  Jane  Kelfe,  Philadelphia 
Rev.  Robert  Kerr,  New- York  Sta'C 
Mr.   Benjamin  Keyfer,  Philadelphia 
Andrev/  Kiingle,  do. 

î.îr.   Henry  Labau£h,  at  Uwchlan,  Pcnnfylvania 
Toihua  H.  Langley,  Piovidence,  Rhode  Ifland 

^/r/.*Eliza  LafTillee,  Philadelphia 

Rev.  Lebbeus  Lathrop,  Mount  Bethel,  New-Jerfey 

Mr.   Norton  Lawrence,  Fairfcld,  do. 

Jofeph  Lawfon,  Philadelphia 

Dr.  William  Lehman,  do. 

Mr.   Jofeph  Leder,  do. 

Maj.  John  Levering,  Ridge,  9  copies 

Jofeph  Lewis,  Efq.  Morris -town,  New  Jerfcy 

Mr,  Daniel  Lewry,  Philadelphia 


SUBSCRIBERS'  NAMES, 

Eliza  Ann  Levvry,  Philadelphia 

Mr.  Thomas  Lloyd,  at  the  Fort,  Chefter  County 

Mifs  Ann  Lounfberry,  Philadelphia 

Mr.  Lemuel  Lovell,  Pittftown,  County  of  Ranfeleer, 

New- York,  9  copies 
Rev,  Shubael  Lovell,  Rowley,  MafTachufetts    • 
Mtfs  Abby  Lovcland,  Philadelphia 
Mrs.  Catharine  Loxley,  do. 

Mr.  Thomas  Ludlam,  Weft  Creek,  New-Jerfey 
Maj.  Benjamin  Ludlow,  Morris  County,  New-Jerfey 

Mr.  John  M'Gowan,  Mount-Holly 

James  M'Glathery, 

Edward  Marks,  \  irginia 
William  M  llvaine,  M.  D.   Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Jofeph  M' llvaine,  Efq.  Recorder  of  the  City  of  Bur- 
lington, New-Jerfey 
Mr.   William  Marten,  Philadelphia 

Mibfam  Martien  do. 

John  Fleetwood  îvlarfh,  Efq.  New-York 
Rev.  James    M'Laughlin,  Hiiltown,  2  copies 
Mr.  Thomas  Mathias,  Hiiltown 

John  Matthews,  Philadelphia 

John  M'Mullin,  do. 

George  Maris,  Baltimore 
Rev.  Jonathan  Maxcy,  D.  D.  Prefident  of  the  Univcr- 

fity  at  Providence,  Rhode  Ifland 

A  fa  Meffor,  A.  M.  ProfeiTor  of  Languages  in  the 

Univerfity  at  Providence,  Rhode  Ifland 
Mr.  John  M'MilHn,  Walhington,  Pennfylvania 

Alfred  Metcaif,  Pvhode  Ifland 

William  Moody,  Baltimore 

Elijah  Moore,  New-Jerfey 

Daniel  Moore,  Dcerfield,  Nev/-Jerfey, 
Deac.  Enos  Miles,  Chcfl:er  County 
Mr.  Mofes  Millin,  Rhode  Ifland 

John  Mitchell,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
Rev.  John  Mafon,  New- York,  3  copies 

J.  Miller,  do.  2  copies 

Mr.  Silas  Mulfçrd;  New-Jcrf^y 


subscribeâ'S'  names. 

Mr.  Tfaac  Mcars,  Connelly  Ville 
Samuel  Mecklin,  Philauelphia 
Andrew  Mein,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 
John  Moorc,  Philadelphia 
Jolm  Muncy,         do. 
Ifar.c  Murphy,  New-Jerfey 

Mrs.  Mary  Nealc,  Burlington,  New-Jerfcy 
î\Ir.  John  Neale,  do.  do. 

John  Ncai,  Philadelphia 

John  Nice, 

Jofiah  Nichols,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 

Jona'chan  Nichols,     do.  do. 

Davis  Nirhols,  dn.  an. 

Azael  Nicliols,  do.  do. 

William  Norton,  Student  at  Rhode  Tfland  College 
Jofcph  Ncurfe,  Efq.  Regi(ter  of  the  Treaf.  Wafhington 
Col.  Thomas  Noyés,  Weflerly,  Rhode  liland 

Mr.  William  Oakford,  Philadelphia 

Samuel  Oakford,  do. 

Jofeph  Ogden,  Efq.  Fairfield,  New-Jerfey 
Mr.  Thomas  Ogden,     do.  do. 

Rcv.  William  Parkinfon,  Chaplain  to  Congrcfs 
Mr.  Calvin  Park,  Rhode  Iiland  College 

James  D.  Park,  New-Jerfey 

George  Pavrisj  Deerfield,  New-Jtrfcy 

John  Peckworth,  Philadelphia 

Mark  Peek,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 

Jacob  Peierfon,  do. 

Edward  Pennington,  Philadelphia 

Jofuih  Phillips,  Uwch-lan,  Pennfylvania 

John  Phillips,  do  de. 

Jofiah  Phillips,  jun.    Chciler  County,  Pennfylv. 

Thomas  Potts,  Burlington,  New-Jerfey 

Richard  Powel,  Virginia 
Rev.  Alexander  Proudfit,  Salem,  New- York  State,  4 

copies 


SUBSCRTBERV  NAMES. 
Robert  Ralfton,  Efq-   Philadelphia 
Mr.  Matthew  Randall,  Burlington,  New-Jerfcy 

Ilofea  Rankins,  New-Jerfey 
Rev.  Joflvja  Reece,  Cecil  Coi:nty>  Maryland 
Mr.  John  Reed,  jun.  Student  at  Rhode  Ifland  College 

James  Rice,  jun.  Baltimore 
Rev.  Lewis  Richard's,        do. 
Mr.   Henry  Rittenhoufe,    do. 
Jacob  Richardfon,  Efq.  Poft-Mafler,  (Bookfeller,) 

Newport,  Rhode  liland,  ii  copies 
Mifs  Nancy  Roberts,  Baltimore 
Mr.  Abraham  Robinfon,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 

Daniel  Robinfon,  do,  do. 

Walter   RoSinftJU,   New  JeiTey 

John  R.  Robinfon,  Wilmington,  Delaware 
Rev.  William  Rogers,  D.  D.  ProfefTor  of  Englifh  and 

Belles  Lettres,  in  the  Univerfity  of  Pennfylvania 
Mr.  Charles  Rogers,  City  Wafhington 

William  Rogers,  do.  do. 

Jofeph  Rogers,  Merchant,  Newport,  Rhode  lild. 
Robert  Rogers,    A.  M.   Principal    of  the  Academy, 

New-Port,  Rhode  Ifland 
Mr,  Francis  Roller,  Philadelphia 
Ann  Rofe,  Philadelphia 
Deac.  A  fa  Runyon,  Pifcatawa,  New-Jerfey 
Benjamin  Rufh,  Zvl.  D.  and  Treafurer  of  the  Mint  of 
the  United  States,  Philadelphia 

Sophia  San  ford,  Philadelphia 

Mr.   Samuel  Savil,        do. 

Jacob  Schoonmaker,  A.  B.  Student  in  Divinity,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Charles  O.  Screven,  Rhode  Ifland  College 
Jared  Sexton,  Philadelphia 
Elijah  Shaw,  Deerfield,  New-Jerfey 

Rev.  Philo  Shelton,  Connecticut 

Mr.  David  Shepard,  Cohanfey,  New-Jerfey 

Mrs.  Flannah  Shields,  Philndelphia 

Thomas  Shields,  Efq.  ào. 

Jfr.  Thomas  Shields,  jun.    do. 


SCiuR     232.8     A122D      275547 


Seboolotï^*^^^ 


